Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents : A Practitioner's Guide [1 ed.] 9780826123497, 9780826123480

Citation preview

Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents A Practitioner’s Guide

Esther Geva Judith Wiener

Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents

Esther Geva, PhD, is professor of School and Clinical Child Psychology in the Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto. She studied in Israel, the United States, and Canada, and obtained her PhD from the University of Toronto in 1981. Her research, publications, and teaching focus on (a) developmental issues and best practices concerning language and literacy skills in children from various immigrant and minority backgrounds, and in ethnically and linguistically marginalized groups; (b) language and literacy skills in typically developing learners and learners with learning difficulties; and (c) crosscultural perspectives on children’s psychological difficulties. She supervises graduate students who work with culturally and linguistically diverse children and families in the OISE Psychology Clinic. Dr. Geva has served on numerous advisory, policy, and review committees in the United States and Canada concerned with language and literacy development in culturally and linguistically diverse children including the National Literacy Panel. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and reviews and has served as coeditor of three special issues of the journal Reading and Writing as well as coeditor of the book Interprofessional Practice With Diverse Populations: Cases in Point (2000). In addition to presenting her research and leading workshops both in North America and internationally, she has been appointed a Minerva Scholar by Canada’s Council on Learning. Judith Wiener, PhD, is professor of School and Clinical Child Psychology in the Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto. She obtained her PhD from the University of Michigan in 1978. She has worked as a school psychologist, in children’s mental health centers, and in private practice. Her primary clinical expertise is assessment and psychosocial interventions with children and adolescents with learning disabilities and ADHD, and children and adolescents who are immigrants and refugees. In addition to supervising graduate students working with immigrant and refugee children and families in the OISE psychology clinic, she coordinated a program providing school psychology services in Pikangikum, a remote First Nations community in Northern Ontario. Dr. Wiener is past president of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities. Her current research is on self-perceptions, family and peer relationships of children and adolescents with ADHD and learning disabilities, and the efficacy of school-based and mindfulness interventions on their self-perceptions and relationships. She has published over 60 book chapters and articles in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to presenting professional talks and workshops throughout the United States and Canada, she is regularly interviewed and consulted in Canada’s mass media regarding ADHD, bullying in schools, and other children’s mental health and education issues. The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada presented her with their Award for Excellence in Research in Learning Disabilities in 1999.

Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents A Practitioner’s Guide

ESTHER GEVA, PhD JUDITH WIENER, PhD

Copyright © 2015 Springer Publishing Company, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Springer Publishing Company, LLC, or authorization through payment of the appropriate fees to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978–750-8400, fax 978–646-8600, [email protected] or on the web at www.copyright.com. Springer Publishing Company, LLC 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 www.springerpub.com Acquisitions Editor: Nancy S. Hale Production Editor: Shelby Peak Composition: Newgen Knowledge Works ISBN: 978-0-8261-2348-0 e-book ISBN: 978-0-8261-2349-7 Forms and Instruments ISBN: 978-0-8261-3059-4 Forms and instruments are available from springerpub.com/geva-wiener 14 15 16 17 / 5 4 3 2 1 The authors and the publisher of this work have made every effort to use sources believed to be reliable to provide information that is accurate and compatible with the standards generally accepted at the time of publication. The authors and publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this book. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Geva, Esther. Psychological assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents : a practitioner’s guide / Esther Geva, PhD, Judith Wiener, PhD. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8261-2348-0 1. Psychological tests for children. 2. Multiculturalism. 3. Multilingualism 4. Child psychology. I. Wiener, Judith. II. Title. BF722.3.G48 2015 155.4028’7—dc23 2014024604

Special discounts on bulk quantities of our books are available to corporations, professional associations, pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations, and other qualifying groups. If you are interested in a custom book, including chapters from more than one of our titles, we can provide that service as well. For details, please contact: Special Sales Department, Springer Publishing Company, LLC 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10036–8002 Phone: 877–687-7476 or 212–431-4370; Fax: 212–941-7842 E-mail: [email protected] Printed in the United States of America by Edwards Brothers.

This book is dedicated to our parents, who sensitized us to the immigrant and refugee experience, and taught us to care and respect people regardless of ability, background, language, creed, or nationality, and to our families, who provided encouragement and tolerated with grace our periodic absences from their lives so that this book can be shared with others.

Contents

Foreword by Fred H. Genesee, PhD ix Preface xiii Acknowledgments xvii Share Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents: A Prectitioner ' s Guide 1. Introduction

1

2. Demographic, Policy, and Socioeconomic Contexts of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity 11 3. Research on the Development of Language and Literacy Skills of L2 Learners: Implications for Assessment 33 4. Gaining an Understanding of the Individual and Family Context 5. Assessment of Oral Language Proficiency 6. Assessment of Intelligence

85

115

7. Assessment of Academic Achievement

135

8. Assessment of Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Functioning 9. Communication, Advocacy, and Consultation 10. Putting It All Together

Appendix: Case Studies References 293 Index 325

61

237

249

217

177

Foreword

E

sther Geva and Judith Wiener’s book Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents provides a much-needed all-purpose guide for assessing culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. It is intended primarily for school and clinical psychologists who work with children and adolescents, as well as for graduate students who are taking advanced courses in psychological assessment or the assessment of CLD students. Their focus is on the challenges of immigrant and refugee students; but they also discuss Roma and Aboriginal/indigenous students, groups who are usually neglected in other books but face considerable and special challenges in school. As Geva and Wiener amply point out, the number of CLD students in many countries around the world is large and growing. Indeed, in many urban schools and, in fact, in a growing number of suburban schools in North America and Europe, CLD students are part of the new norm. CLD students face many challenges in school, including acquiring a new language, adapting to a new culture and a new school, geographic dislocation in the case of immigrants and refugee students, and often socioeconomic hardship, among others. The challenges are even greater for CLD students if they migrate to a new community and begin schooling in a new language beyond the primary grades when the academic demands are considerable but their skills in the language of schooling are only rudimentary and they have had limited time to acculturate. These challenges, along with others that are carefully considered in this book, can result in many CLD students underperforming in school in comparison to their mainstream peers. Enhancing their educational success is the goal of assessment. Geva and Wiener’s approach to assessing CLD students is broad in scope. It goes beyond diagnosis. In their approach, assessment is a tool for understanding struggling CLD students so that we can better provide interventions that will mitigate the many challenges they face and enhance their success in school. Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents excels in presenting the full range of challenges that CLD students can face and the multifaceted factors that underlie their challenges. To

x

FOREWORD

be more specific, although other books on working with CLD students, including my own (e.g., Paradis et al., 2011), have tended to focus on language-related difficulties, Geva and Wiener also include assessment of academic achievement and intelligence. In addition, they give considerable attention to assessment of social, emotional, and behavioral functioning in school. Chapter 8, in particular, provides a very detailed and useful discussion of the complexities of assessing social, emotional, and behavioral functioning and how cultural context can shape CLD students’ functioning in these domains in school. Moreover, they critically analyze standard methods for assessing these domains of functioning, pointing out their limitations when it comes to assessing CLD students, and they go on to propose alternative approaches to assessment. A critical part of assessment is understanding and explaining the difficulties that CLD students might experience. In this regard, Geva and Wiener emphasize the importance of gathering information on a broad range of issues that might be at play. For example, with respect to understanding the low academic achievement of struggling CLD students (Chapter 7), they recommend considering age and stage of development in the L2, L1 proficiency and experiences, cultural bias of assessment instruments, the student’s knowledge and experiences with the culture of the school, familiarity with testing formats, immigration history, and the environment of the school and classroom, among others. Assessing CLD students in the context of their families and the community is a recurrent theme throughout the book. In Chapter 4, “Gaining an Understanding of the Individual and Family Context,” for example, they provide a comprehensive review of familial and cultural factors that can help explain the educational challenges of CLD students. They also offer many useful insights and suggestions for working with and better understanding CLD families, including how to gain their trust, conducting interviews with CLD families, and working with cultural/language interpreters. In line with current emphases on evidence-based practice, Geva and Wiener’s recommendations rely on empirical, published scientific evidence. At the same time, their review of the relevant research and the recommendations they propose are nontechnical. They present six case studies of CLD students with different backgrounds and learner profiles to bring the material to life and illustrate in individual terms how to use the material they review. I found Chapter 9 (“Communication, Advocacy, and Consultation”) particularly important and useful. In this chapter, Geva and Wiener describe assessment of CLD students as being “embedded in a counseling process.” It is during this phase of assessment that the results of the goals of assessment are shared with “stakeholders,” including students themselves, parents, and educators working with these students. In their own words, “the goal is for the stakeholders to understand the child’s and family’s needs, and implement recommendations effectively.” This, in turn, entails “developing a trusting professional relationship with children and their families, understanding the families’ perspectives,

FOREWORD

xi

accommodating for cultural differences, and communicating effectively using language they understand” (p. 215). Communicating with and advocating for CLD students and their families is a critical but often neglected aspect of working with struggling CLD students. Tests and testing are usually considered a standard part of assessment. Geva and Wiener’s approach to assessment includes testing but goes beyond simply testing. For example, in “Assessment of Academic Achievement” (Chapter 7), they discuss the use of standardized tests and how to adapt standardized tests to be more suitable and informative when used with CLD students. They also discuss how to use observational techniques, interviews, and dynamic assessment to come to a better and more complete understanding of struggling CLD students. They provide numerous practical tips throughout the book and in the appendices that serve as useful summaries of information discussed in greater detail in each chapter and also as useful guides on how to make use of that information when assessing struggling CLD students and planning for supporting them. For example, the assessment chapters end with useful lists of “dos and don’ts,” questions to consider when planning assessment, protocols for interviewing parents and students, checklists for assessing language and communication skills, frameworks for thinking about assessment, and others. These sections will be particularly useful for school psychologists and other educators from mainstream backgrounds who may have limited experience or understanding of the lives of the CLD students. These sections could also be of relevance to teacher trainers and even graduate students who are looking for a comprehensive discussion of these issues. Such a broad approach to assessment makes a great deal of sense for a number of reasons. For one, planning appropriate individualized intervention for struggling CLD students, the ultimate goal of assessment, calls for understanding the specific and possibly multiple factors that underlie their difficulties. This is important if we are to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” approach to providing support. Considering multiple issues is equally important insofar as CLD students, like other struggling students, can experience multiple challenges that can put their academic success at risk. Research in the United States shows that the academic performance of CLD students (or English language learners, to use their terminology) declines as the number of risks they face increases (LindholmLeary, 2010). The broad approach advocated by Geva and Wiener views CLD students as individuals with rich cultural, linguistic, and personal histories that need to be considered if the challenges they face are to be mitigated and their academic success enhanced. Although the primary audience for Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents is school and clinical psychologists, there is much in this book that will be of interest and value to general educators, including classroom teachers. The challenges CLD students face pose significant challenges for all educators in many school districts and classroom teachers in

xii

FOREWORD

particular because, as noted earlier, CLD students comprise a significant and growing proportion of students in more and more classrooms. If we continue to regard these students as “minority students,” a label that arguably describes not only the status of their languages and cultures but also the treatment they get in many schools, we risk undereducating a growing proportion of the student population. Unfortunately, at present, the pre-service education of many general classroom teachers does not adequately prepare them to work effectively with CLD students (for example, see Samson & Collins, 2012, for a discussion of the state of preparedness of general/classroom educators in the United States to work with CLD children). Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents goes a long way to providing insights and professional knowledge that will be useful to school and clinical psychologists and general educators alike.

Fred H. Genesee, PhD Professor Emeritus, McGill University

REFERENCES Lindholm-Leary, K. (2010). Student and school impacts: A quantitative analysis. In L. Olsen, K. Lindholm-Leary, M. Lavadenz, E. Armas, & F. Dell’Olio (Eds.), The Promise Initiative: Pursuing regional opportunities for mentoring, innovation, and success for English learners. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Office of Education. Retrieved from http://www.promise-initiative .org/report-on-findings Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012, April). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/ wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/ell_report.pdf

Preface

D

ue to the impact of immigration and globalization, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several countries in Europe are becoming increasingly multicultural and multilingual. Some immigrants are motivated by hopes for better jobs and better education for their children, and some are motivated by the need to leave behind war-torn countries and violence that impinge on the safety of their families. Due to the declining birthrates among native-born people in many countries with high levels of immigration, and the higher birthrates of some immigrant groups, the proportion of children who are immigrants or children of immigrants is typically higher than the immigrant population as a whole. Toronto, where we live, is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. Toronto’s inhabitants speak more than 140 languages and dialects, with 30% speaking a language other than English or French (the two official languages) at home (http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm). As a result of this diversity, we have had an opportunity to engage in research on second-language learning and cultural differences in perspectives on academic achievement and mental health, as well as do clinical work with children and adolescents who come from culturally and linguistically diverse families. The OISE Psychology Clinic, which is housed in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)/ University of Toronto, is a training facility for graduate students in school and clinical child psychology. These students receive their initial training in psychological assessment and instructional and psychosocial intervention. Referrals of culturally and linguistically diverse clients spurred the School and Clinical Child Psychology program, with which we are both affiliated, to include a doctoral practicum course where assessment and intervention strategies for these children and adolescents are taught. Collectively, we have taught this course for a period of 25 years, supervising our graduate students’ assessments and interventions with approximately 200 children and adolescents. During that time we have developed effective strategies for working with many of the children and families, and have honed our clinical skills.

xiv

PREFACE

Our graduates, many of whom are immigrants and refugees, children of foreign-born parents, or Aboriginals, are now practicing as school and clinical psychologists in several jurisdictions in Canada and other countries. They keep telling us that this course was extremely useful and that they apply the strategies we taught them on an ongoing basis. Over the years we have given workshops to practicing school and clinical psychologists across Canada where we present the strategies we use that are based on our research and findings from other researchers. The psychologists who attend our workshops and our graduate students have asked us to write this book so that they can have a comprehensive and written record of what we teach, and so that we can share our knowledge and skills more widely. We are coauthors of this book and have complementary skill sets to bring to it. Esther Geva has a strong background in cognitive science and language development, and does extensive research on typical and atypical development of language and literacy skills in children and adolescents who are learning in their second language. Judith Wiener’s background is in school and clinical psychology. Her research is on peer and family relationships of children and adolescents with ADHD and learning disabilities, teacher attitudes toward including children with special educational needs in regular education classrooms, and effective methods of communicating assessment results to parents and teachers. We have sat together in each other’s patios, gardens, and offices writing side by side, sharing ideas, and discussing points of contention. We believe that the product of these discussions enriches the book. This book is intended for school and clinical psychologists who work with children and adolescents, as well as for graduate students who are taking advanced courses in psychological assessment or the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents. However, other professionals such as educators and speech and language pathologists who work with culturally and linguistically diverse children, adolescents, and families may also find parts of this book valuable. Although the specific methods we describe are mainly designed for school-age children and adolescents, the principles we discuss also apply to young children and emerging adults in postsecondary institutions. We assume that readers have a solid background in developmental psychology, psychopathology, and psychodiagnosis; have had training in psychometrics; are skilled in administering, scoring, and interpreting the results of psychological and educational tests; have interpersonal skills needed to develop a trusting professional relationship with children, youth, and families; and are conversant with the ethical and professional standards of their jurisdiction and ethical decision making, including those that pertain to working with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) was published during the period when we were writing this book. We assume that our readers are familiar with the DSM-5 classifications. In the book we discuss the issues involved in diagnosis

PREFACE

xv

of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents with specific disorders using DSM-5. The strategies described in this guidebook are based on up-to-date research on typical cognitive, language, emotional, and social development of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents, including those who are studying in their second language; cultural differences and acculturation; culturally based perspectives on disabilities and disorders; and disorders that might develop due to the challenges experienced by some immigrants and refugees. Although we include informal instruments that we created, the content of those instruments is based on the research. We also discuss standardized and dynamic assessment. We do not describe the methodology of the research we refer to in detail; instead, we provide references so that interested readers might consult the relevant research. This guidebook is also grounded in clinical work. We are both experienced clinicians who have worked in school, hospital, and mental health settings. We currently supervise graduate students assessing culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents in addition to doing our own clinical work. One of the key features of this book is a list of questions that we think about, and encourage our students to think about, when formulating cases. These lists of questions, as well as some of the informal instruments we developed, are available in usable form to purchasers of this book on the Springer website (springerpub.com/geva-wiener). The specific clinical process we engage in is elaborated on in the book and is illustrated by six carefully selected case studies that should enhance understanding of the issues, strategies, and clinical formulation. Some readers may find it helpful to read these case studies (found in the Appendix) after reading Chapter 1 and prior to reading the rest of the book. They may find that the case studies orient them to the issues, and bring the concepts and strategies to life. We hope that this book will be useful for readers who live and work in all of the countries in the world that have substantial immigration or have vulnerable minority groups. The book is international in scope; therefore, we do not focus on policies and legislation in any specific country, or on immigrants and refugees who come from specific countries. Our intent is for psychologists in all countries that have cultural and linguistic diversity to read this book and apply the strategies we describe. We have written this book in English because it is the first language of one of the authors and because most educated people in countries that receive high levels of immigration are able to read English. We encourage our readers who work in countries with other official languages to translate the checklists and informal instruments into those languages. Ultimately, we hope that this book will trigger further research and development, further refinement of clinical practices, and, most importantly, that the lives and education of children and adolescents who come from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and have special educational needs will improve.

Acknowledgments

W

e would like to acknowledge several people and groups whose support has been instrumental to the completion of this book. We are grateful to Nancy S. Hale, editorial director, Social Sciences, at Springer Publishing Company, for her ongoing guidance and dedication to facilitating completion of the book. We also thank Barbara Reid, whose judgment, diligence, and knowledge of APA style greatly enhanced timely completion of the manuscript. Several of our doctoral students had specific roles in creating this manuscript. Clarisa Markel capably assisted with literature searches needed to write Chapters 4 and 8, and Alan Rokeach and Christine Fraser searched various databases important for the writing of Chapter 2. Sharon To created Figure 9.1 and provided technical support for Figure 9.2. We are grateful to the following colleagues who provided conceptual feedback that was very helpful in creating Figure 3.1: Dr. Todd Cunningham, Dr. Fataneh Farnia, Dr. Michal Shany, and Dr. Dale Willows. We would like to thank Dr. Avigail Ram, who permitted us to use her normal curve diagram (Figure 9.2). Special thanks are due to the many graduate students who have taken our course on psychological assessment and intervention with culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents, and whose commitment to culturally sensitive practice has benefited so many children and families and taught so much. We are grateful to the undergraduate tutor mentors whose volunteer work taught us about the diverse and creative ways we can help culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents. We also want to acknowledge the educators and mental health practitioners who have referred these children and collaborated with us. Their commitment to ensuring that every child they work with can succeed is inspiring. Most importantly, we have learned a great deal from the children, teens, and families who have come to our clinic regularly, and worked very hard. Their struggles have taught us so much about language and cultural differences, persistence, and resilience.











4IBSF

Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents: A Practitioner's Guide

Psychological Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Adolescents

CHAPTER 1:

Introduction

Myth: We can’t assess a child who comes from a different cultural background and does not speak our language. We don’t have appropriate standardized tests and qualified staff, plus the child is struggling because the parents do not use our language at home; therefore we won’t do an assessment (special education administrator). Fact: Current research provides a solid guide to strategies for collecting information that allows psychologists to diagnose learning, behavioral, social and emotional difficulties in children and adolescents who come from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. We meet some of these children and adolescents below.

A

my is a 6-year-old girl whose family immigrated to Canada from China prior to her birth. Her teacher referred her because she has not spoken at school or at the child care center attached to the school since she enrolled 3 years earlier. Her parents speak Mandarin and a Chinese dialect fluently, and some conversational English. Boris is a 9-year-old boy in Grade 4 whose mother initiated an assessment due to Boris’s academic and social difficulties. Boris was born in Russia, and immigrated to Canada while in kindergarten. Russian is spoken at home, but both parents speak conversational English. Diego, who was referred due to severe academic challenges and attention difficulties, is an 11-year-old boy in Grade 6 from a Latin American country where there is considerable violence associated with the drug trade. His father is deceased. His family came to Canada as refugees when he was 8 years old. His mother speaks Spanish and is not literate. Khalil is a 14-year-old boy in Grade 9 who was born in Canada to parents who emigrated from Iran a year earlier. Since then he has lived for various periods of time in Canada and Iran. A counselor at his private boarding school in Toronto referred him due to problems with reading, writing, and completing work. She indicated that his father was deceased and his mother lives in Iran. Changgun, who prefers to be called Brandon, was referred by his mother when he was 15 years old due to poor and declining school performance and oppositional behavior at home. He was born in Canada shortly after his parents

2

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

emigrated from Korea. His mother speaks fluent English. Aisha was referred by a support worker at a community agency due to severe problems with acquiring reading and language skills after she had been in Canada for 4 years. She attends an intensive program for English-language learners at a large vocational secondary school. Aisha was born in a refugee camp in Africa, and immigrated to Canada with her parents at the age of 13 years. Aisha’s parents speak French and Kirundi and are learning English. Children like Amy, Boris, Diego, Khalil, Changgun, and Aisha are challenging for psychologists to assess because it is difficult to tease out the relative contributions of having to learn and function in a second language, poverty, the need to adapt to a new society and culture, and possible maltreatment and trauma in their countries of origin. Their parents may not speak the language of the immigrant-receiving country, and may be struggling to survive financially. Due to cultural differences, their perspectives on their children’s functioning may differ from parents born and educated in the immigrant-receiving country and from teachers and psychologists in their new country. In this guidebook, we discuss the linguistic and cultural issues to consider when assessing children and adolescents from diverse backgrounds, with a major focus on immigrants and refugees. Notably, while the research population on which this book is based is mainly English-language learners who are, or whose parents are, immigrants or refugees, the principles extend to immigrants in countries where the official language is not English, indigenous peoples, marginalized cultural groups, and emerging bilingual learners. The assessment strategies we propose are informed by research on the following: typical developmental trajectories of children who are learning a second language; the relative contributions of second-language learning and learning disabilities to academic achievement; cultural differences in perspectives on academic achievement and mental health; the impact of culture and immigration-related experiences on cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional development; and culturally sensitive practice with children, adolescents, and families. This guidebook is important for several reasons. Various recent reports from international and public interest bodies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicate that the proportion of immigrants and refugees around the world whose children need to develop their language and literacy skills in the societal language of their country of residence is increasing. Some of these children and adolescents are successful in accommodating to the school environment and achieve academically; many of them, however, are struggling. Their struggles have been attributed to a dearth of policies and programs that support their educational and social needs in their adopted countries. Some of the culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents who struggle are those who, in addition to being second-language learners and culturally

1. INTRODUCTION

3

different, have significant learning, behavioral, social, and emotional difficulties and require the services of psychologists and other mental health professionals. Traditional psychological assessment methods may not be valid for many of these children. Finally, according to national policy papers (e.g., Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations [American Psychological Association, 1990]), international policy papers (e.g., UNICEF documents such as Promoting the Rights of Children With Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child), and laws pertaining to children, diversity, and special needs in many OECD countries (e.g., the Individuals With Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act in the United States; Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Government of Canada, 1982]), culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents are entitled to the services they might access if their needs were appropriately identified by an assessment. The 10 chapters of this book are intended to provide psychologists, and in some jurisdictions special educators and other mental health practitioners, with research-based strategies for assessing culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents. We begin with a discussion of demographic, socioeconomic, policy-related, and educational contexts of cultural and linguistic diversity that pertain to the academic achievement of children of immigrants and refugees and other marginalized groups in countries that have high levels of immigration, and a description of key issues involved in providing for children and adolescents with special educational needs (Chapter 2). We next address research on the typical developmental trajectory of language and literacy of children and adolescents who must learn in a language that is not the language of their home, and the implications of that research for distinguishing whether their learning difficulties are due to inadequate proficiency in the societal language or due to a learning disability (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 is devoted to the issues to consider and strategies to use for acquiring an understanding of families’ perspectives on their children’s development and difficulties. In Chapter 5, we describe methods for assessing children and adolescents’ oral language proficiency (OLP) in their first and second languages. We then discuss the issues involved and methods for assessing intelligence (Chapter 6); academic achievement (Chapter 7); and behavioral, social, and emotional functioning (Chapter 8). In Chapter 9, we describe strategies for communicating assessment results to culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents, as well as to their parents, teachers, physicians, and other professionals who work with them. We specifically address consultation, advocacy, and report writing. Chapter 10, the final chapter of the book, presents a developmental systems approach for diagnostic formulation and clinical decision making. We also discuss linking assessment with instructional and psychosocial intervention. The Appendix is devoted to the assessments of the six children and adolescents described briefly

4

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

above. These case studies describe the methods we used for obtaining assessment data, the reasons we used these methods, our diagnostic formulations and the reasons for our clinical decision making, and recommendations for intervention. Throughout the book, we refer the reader to the specific case studies that illustrate the issues and methods discussed. We use some terminology and acronyms in this guidebook that some psychologists may not be familiar with. Table 1.1 provides definitions of these terms.

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms Term

Acronym

Definition

Culture and Immigration Aboriginal

Culturally and linguistically diverse

Original inhabitants; people who inhabited a region from the beginning or before the arrival of colonists. Related terms: Native Americans; First Nations; indigenous CLD

An umbrella term referring to children and adolescents whose families belong to cultural or linguistic groups that are distinct from the culture and/or language of the majority culture. CLD refers to immigrants, refugees, aboriginal people, and marginalized groups who do not speak the language or share cultural values of the dominant group in the society.

Cultural differences

Differences among groups of people defined by nationality, ethnicity, or religion that involve beliefs, attitudes, practices, behaviors, and expectations of one another.

Immigrant

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another country.

Immigrant-receiving country

The country where immigrants and refugees settle.

Minority

A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part. Often subjected to differential treatment.

Refugee

A person who has been forced to leave his or her country in order to escape war, persecution, discrimination, or natural disaster. (continued )

1. INTRODUCTION

5

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms (continued) Term

Acronym

Definition

English-language learner

ELL

Someone whose first language is not English and is continuing to develop his/her command of the English language.

English as a second language

ESL

The term ELL (see above) has replaced English as a second language/ESL; ESL is currently used primarily in reference to instructional programs designed to support ELLs, and the teachers who deliver these programs.

English as a first language

EL1

Refers to those whose home and native language is English.

First language

L1

One’s native language; often one’s home language and the first language acquired.

Linguistic Diversity

Heritage language

A language that children who belong to an ethnic or linguistic minority or to an immigrant group learn at home; a heritage language is different from the societal/school language.

Home language

The language used at home.

Language of instruction

The language used at school to deliver the curriculum; in public schools often the societal or official language.

Second language

L2

Typically the language learned after one’s first language.

BICS

Everyday L2 oral communication skills that are acquired rather quickly.

Language Concepts Basic interpersonal communication skills Bilingual Cognitive academic language proficiency

A person who is fluent in two languages. CALP

Academic L2 language skills needed to cope with academic demands. CALP takes a long time to develop.

Listening comprehension

The ability to comprehend and recall information presented orally.

Monolingual

A person who is fluent in only one language. (continued )

6

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms (continued) Term

Acronym

Definition

Morphology

Description of how words are formed and patterns of word formation in a language.

Morphosyntax

The study of grammatical categories and linguistic units that have both morphological and syntactic properties.

Multilingual

A person who is fluent in more than two languages.

Morpheme

The smallest meaningful linguistic unit.

Oral language proficiency

OLP

A cluster of language skills that work together to enable communication and comprehension. These language skills include the ability to recognize and produce the phonemes of a given language, vocabulary, morphology, grammar, and discourse features.

Phoneme

The smallest unit of speech in a given language that can be used to make one word different from another word.

Pragmatics

The ways language users overcome ambiguity in meaning. Drawing inferences about the intent of an utterance involves relying on the context of an utterance, familiarity with the speaker, and so on.

Semantic

Meaning or the interpretation of the meaning of words. The focus is on conventional meaning coded in a given language.

Syntax

Description of the rules that govern how words are put together into sentences.

Vocabulary

The words that exist in a language.

Literacy-Related Concepts Relationships across two languages (see transfer).

Cross-linguistic Learning disabilities

LD

Children with LD have severe difficulty in learning to read, write, or do arithmetic, and these difficulties cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, motor, emotional, or behavioral debilitating conditions, nor are they due to poverty, cultural and linguistic diversity, or lack of opportunities to learn. The definition of LD is contentious but it is agreed that LDs are brain-based and heritable conditions that are associated with low achievement in certain academic domains. (continued )

1. INTRODUCTION

7

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms (continued) Term

Acronym

Definition

Specific learning disorder

SLD

DSM-5 term for learning disabilities

Nonword decoding

See pseudoword decoding.

Orthography

The aspect of spelling that focuses on letters and conventions of letter sequences in words in a given language.

Orthographic depth

The degree of transparency (or consistency) between spelling and phonology in different orthographies. In “shallow” orthographies such as Spanish the degree of transparency is larger than in “deep” orthographies such as English.

Phonological awareness

Phonological awareness involves awareness of the phonological or sound structure of spoken words. It is the awareness that one can detect sounds in words and can manipulate them through operations such as identifying, comparing, separating, and combining.

Phonological memory

The ability to hold in short-term memory phonological information such as sequences of phonemes and unfamiliar words.

Pseudoword decoding

Applying orthographic and phonological skills in order to sound out nonsense words that comply with the orthography of a given language.

Rapid automatized naming

RAN

The ability to name, with accuracy and fluency, highly familiar items such as letters or digits; is believed to evaluate speed of access to lexical items.

Reading comprehension

The act of extracting meaning from printed text. It involves the orchestration of a variety of word-level reading skills, text-level reading skills, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and executive function.

Reading comprehension strategies

Methods that readers can use to improve their reading comprehension. Examples include identifying unfamiliar words, rereading, relating prior knowledge to the new information in the text, asking and answering questions about the text, highlighting the main idea in each paragraph, and comprehension monitoring. (continued )

8

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms (continued) Term

Acronym

Definition

Reading fluency

Reading with accuracy and speed.

Text-level reading

The processes involved in reading text.

Text reading fluency

Reading text with accuracy and speed; it is dependent on accurate word reading and on language skills.

Transfer

The relationships between L1 and L2 reading, language, and underlying cognitive processing skills.

Typology

The classification of languages and writing systems on the basis of similarity or distance in structural features.

Word-level reading

The processes involved in reading isolated words.

Word recognition

The ability to read previously encountered printed words.

Word reading fluency

Reading isolated words effortlessly, with accuracy and speed; word reading accuracy is a prerequisite.

Education and Policy Bilingual Program

A program designed to foster the concurrent development of language and literacy skills in two languages.

Heritage Language Program

A program designed to maintain familiarity with the language and cultural heritage of a given linguistic group.

Immersion Program

A program designed to foster the development of an L2 by immersing learners in the language and literacy skills of the L2.

Inclusion

The policy of including children with special educational needs in a regular classroom.

Special Education or Special Needs Education

Programs designed to help learners with special educational needs to learn through direct instruction and program accommodation and adaptation. Depending on policy, severity, and the nature of the problem, special (needs) education may be delivered by regular teachers in regular classrooms, or teachers with specialized training, in pullout formats or segregated classes. (continued )

1. INTRODUCTION

Table 1.1 Definitions of Terms (continued) Term

Acronym

Definition

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OECD

A forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social, and environmental challenges of globalization.

Programme for International Student Assessment

PISA

Under the auspices of the OECD, PISA conducts evaluations of reading, math, and science skills of 15-year olds in OECD countries every 3 years. The intent of these international comparisons is to inform policy development and reforms.

The United Nations Children’s Fund

UNICEF

An agency of the United Nations that administers programs to aid education and child and maternal health in developing countries.

9

Demographic, Policy, and Socioeconomic Contexts of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity CHAPTER 2:

Myth: Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children typically come from low socioeconomic status (SES) families, with low incomes and low education, and are not expected to do well academically. Fact: Although some CLD children come from low SES families and have parents who have little schooling, other CLD children have parents who are highly educated. While poverty, discrimination, and parental education contribute to the academic success of CLD children, so do immigration and education policies. Countries vary in the quality and systematicity of language and academic support provided to CLD and minority children.

T

his chapter provides an overview of the demographic, socioeconomic, policy-related, and educational contexts of cultural and linguistic diversity that pertain to equity in education, and the academic achievement of children of immigrants and refugees. Applying equity in education means that all students should be given the opportunity to reach at least a basic minimum level of academic skills, and that personal or socioeconomic factors such as gender, ethnic origin, or family background should not present obstacles for educational success (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2012, p. 15). Awareness of these factors can help school and clinical child psychologists to understand the contexts that affect immigrant and refugee student achievement, to individualize their strategies, to avoid bias and a “one size fits all” approach, and for some, to become involved in pertinent policy-making initiatives.

12

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

In addition to our reliance on various scholarly papers published by academics, we rely frequently on documents published by two United Nations-based branches: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). UNESCO strives to maintain world peace through four principles: (a) mobilizing for education; (b) building intercultural understanding; (c) pursuing scientific cooperation; and (d) protecting freedom of expression (http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco). UNICEF is the “driving force that helps build a world where the rights of every child are realized and [has] the global authority to influence decision-makers, and the variety of partners at grassroots level to turn the most innovative ideas into reality” (www.unicef.org). Given the focus of this book on countries that are members of the OECD, we also draw heavily on research and position documents published by that organization. The OECD is an international organization whose mission is to “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world” (OECD, n.d.). The membership in the OECD consists of 34 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The OECD administers the highly influential Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that tests 15-year-old students in OECD countries in the areas of literacy, mathematics, and science. The results of these tests, which include scores of both native-born and immigrant students, are helpful in understanding the contexts of immigrant-receiving countries and in shaping policy. Recent OECD reports provide highly sophisticated and nuanced analyses to help tease apart factors that contribute to the academic success or failure of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents. Globalization, modernization, and immigration present new challenges to individuals and societies. Increasingly one sees that routine jobs that do not require high levels of education are becoming automated. One effect of such changes in the role of technology in society is that the demand for people who can only carry out routine work that does not require much education is dropping, but demand for individuals who can perform knowledge-based work is increasing. This means that a greater proportion of people, including immigrants, need to be educated and prepared to carry out knowledge-based work. In the highwage countries of the OECD, demand for highly skilled individuals is increasing higher than supply, whereas demand for low-skilled workers is decreasing faster than supply (OECD, 2010b; Picot & Hou, 2012). Such demographic and economic global trends mean that there is an increase in the pressure on governments to create educational systems that are accessible to everyone, and that regardless of socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, or minority status, can provide opportunities for people to get the kind of education that prepares them to be “knowledge

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

13

workers” (OECD, 2011). OECD countries vary, however, in how well their immigrants (Picot & Hou, 2012) and minority groups such as indigenous peoples and the Roma (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2012) succeed in becoming knowledge workers. We begin this chapter with an analysis of immigration trends and academic achievement in OECD immigrant-receiving countries. We discuss several policy issues and controversies that are associated with academic achievement and psychological well-being of CLD children and adolescents. We then examine the issue of marginalized peoples who are not typically immigrants or refugees and briefly address the context of aboriginal/indigenous peoples and of the Roma, who are an important and vulnerable part of the cultural mix in several OECD countries. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of definitional issues and special needs education policies that may impact CLD children and adolescents with special educational needs.

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Immigration has been a critical factor in population growth and in the economy of OECD immigrant-receiving countries. The immigrant population rate has been increasing steadily in these countries, while there has been a general decrease in the natural growth of the nonimmigrant population (Liebig & Widmaier, 2009). By 2010, foreign-born individuals as a percentage of the total population reached an average of about 14% in countries that participated in the PISA tests, and 11% on average in OECD countries. However, there is considerable variability in the proportion of foreign-born individuals in OECD countries. Countries with foreign-born populations that greatly exceed the PISA average are Israel (40%) and Luxembourg (35%). Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Ireland also have considerably higher than average foreign-born populations (20%–25%). Austria, Spain, Sweden, Estonia, the United States, and Germany are all near the OECD average. Mexico, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Chile, Poland, and the Slovak Republic have much smaller foreign-born populations at less than 2% (Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA], 2012). Due to the steady increase in immigration to OECD countries, the percent of children of immigrants in the educational system is growing. In general, the children of immigrants, whether they were born in the receiving country or have immigrated with their parents, account for a significant proportion of the youth population in most OECD countries. These general trends reflect the large number of immigrants who entered OECD countries in the last two to three decades, coupled with a drop in fertility rates in the nonimmigrant population. To illustrate, between 2000 and 2009, the average population of 15-year-old immigrant students in OECD countries grew from 8% to 10%, though some countries experienced a steeper growth than others (PISA, 2009). For example, in Canada,

14

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Greece, and Italy the population of immigrant students grew in this time period by 3% to 5%, but in other OECD countries such as Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States, the population of immigrant students increased by more than 5% (OECD, 2013). Overall, the PISA (2012) test results have shown that achievement in reading and mathematics of children of immigrants in European countries is lower than that of those who are born in the country, but this is not necessarily true for non-European countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, where the results are more positive. The PISA outcomes in reading and math achievement mirror educational attainment levels; children of immigrants who perform below the OECD mean in reading and mathematics are often overrepresented among those who become school dropouts and join the unskilled workforce. In non-European OECD countries, the children of immigrants have education and labor market outcomes that tend to be at least at par with those of the children of natives. In the European OECD countries, both education and labor market outcomes of the children of immigrants tend to be much less favorable (Schnepf, 2007). For example, CLD students with immigrant backgrounds are more likely than native-born students to continue to the postsecondary levels of education in Canada, but are less likely to do so in Switzerland. The lower participation rates in Switzerland are strongly related to poorer secondary school performance as measured by the PISA reading scores. When comparing 10 OECD countries, Schnepf found that in English-speaking OECD countries, immigrant students fare best academically, but in Continental European countries they fare worst, compared to nonimmigrants. Moreover, while second-language (L2) skills explain the source of immigrant students’ disadvantage in Englishspeaking countries, socioeconomic background and school segregation are additional important factors that contribute to the gap in immigrants’ outcomes in Continental Europe. Differences in immigration policy among countries play a significant role in understanding these results, as do other variables such as education policies, education level of the parents, source region, and home language (OECD, 2010b; Picot & Hou, 2012). A related trend noted in recent international PISA comparisons is that children of immigrants from the same country and the same SES achieve differently in different countries. For example, immigrant 15-year-olds from the former Yugoslavia who live in Denmark score about 40 points below the OECD average, while those in Luxembourg score at least 80 points below the OECD average in reading. Such fluctuations have also been noted for immigrant students from Turkey: Those who live in the Netherlands score “only” 45 points below the OECD average, whereas those living in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland score 70 to 80 points below the OECD average, and those in Austria score 115 points below the OECD average in reading. As another example, the children of immigrants from the Russian Federation who live in Finland, Germany, or Israel perform around the OECD average in reading, but those who live in the

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

15

Czech Republic score about 30 points below the OECD average, a gap that is the equivalent to one full year of school. Children from the Russian Federation living in Greece fare even worse, with a mean score at least 50 points below the OECD average in reading (OECD, 2009; PISA Dataset). On average, immigrant students underperform on PISA international comparisons, but the performance gap between them and nonimmigrant students varies considerably across countries, even after adjusting for socioeconomic differences (PISA, 2012). As shown in Table 2.1, various explanations have been offered for these differences in academic achievement and educational attainment of immigrant children living in different immigrant-receiving countries, some of which are discussed in this chapter and others in more depth in Chapter 4. First, policies concerning selection criteria for immigrants vary from country to country. For example, Canada’s immigration policy favors educated individuals who speak one of the official languages (English or French), and have a university education

Table 2.1 Academic Achievement, Educational Attainment, and Well-Being of CLD Children and Adolescents—Risk and Protective Factors Risk Factors

Protective Factors and Policies

Age at immigration—older students more at risk

Beginning school in the immigrant-receiving country

Not speaking the L2 at school entry

Bilingualism at school entry

Physical or mental health problem or a disability

Bicultural competence and cultural flexibility

Poverty

Well-educated parents

Living in segregated neighborhoods

Financial resources

Trauma experienced due to exposure to violence

Community support

Separation from parent who immigrates earlier or who has returned to country of origin

Policies and programs designed to foster learning the L2 and academic achievement

Culture change

Immediate and extended family support (see Chapter 4)

Intergenerational conflict (see Chapter 4)

Mentors

Negative stereotypes and discrimination

Multicultural and education policies that promote equity

CLD, culturally and linguistically diverse; L2, second language.

16

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

or specific skills that are needed for the labor force. While it is true that some countries are more selective in accepting immigrants, the argument that these differences affect academic achievement is weakened because the cross-country comparisons show differences in achievement of children of foreign-born parents after controlling for SES (PISA, 2012). Second, while immigrants in most OECD countries can apply for and receive citizenship, and their children who are born in the immigrant-receiving country are citizens, this is not the case in Germany and Switzerland, a factor that might impact the motivation and opportunities for CLD children and adolescents in those countries (Liebig & Widmaier, 2009). Third, across OECD countries, approximately 15% of immigrant students attend schools where more than 40% of students speak a nonsocietal language at home. As immigrant students are more likely to progress in learning their L2 when they have peers with higher levels of oral language proficiency than they do, students in schools where there are few native speakers of the target language and where instruction is poor may lag in their acquisition of L2 and literacy skills (Carroll, 1975; Collins & White, 2011; Dickson & Cumming, 1996; Lapkin, Hart, & Harley, 1998; OECD, 2011). Fourth, differences in academic achievement in children of immigrants likely occur across countries due to different government multicultural, social, and education policies. A recent OECD report (OECD, 2013) indicated that education systems differ in their ability to facilitate the integration of immigrant students, and these differences are associated with these students’ academic success. The authors of this report argued that CLD immigrant children and youth are likely to have higher levels of academic achievement in countries that “rise to the challenge of diversity and whose school system is flexible enough to adapt to students with different strengths and needs” (OECD, 2013, p. 4). To illustrate how such policies work in action, an OECD report (2011) analyzed the policies of the educational system in British Columbia (BC; one of the provinces in Canada). BC receives very high numbers of immigrant children from various countries; these students, however, tend to achieve at a high level (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; OECD, 2011). In BC, immigrant students typically participate in the regular curriculum and are instructed in the societal language (English), but the BC Ministry of Education makes funds available for additional support when there is evidence that a student has inadequate oral language proficiency and will not progress without this support. This support involves creating an instruction plan annually, development and review of the plan by a specialist in teaching CLD students, and a combination of pull-out instruction and in-class support by specialist teachers who receive specific training for working with students who are acquiring skills in their second language. In addition to differences in immigrant student academic achievement across countries, some factors influence the achievement of CLD children and adolescents regardless of the immigrant-receiving country. The language of instruction

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

17

in most OECD immigrant-receiving countries is usually different from the home language of immigrant students (Liebig & Widmaier, 2009). As will be discussed further in Chapter 3, children who are required to learn in their L2 are likely to lag behind their nonimmigrant peers in oral language proficiency, reading comprehension, and written language skills in the language of instruction of the immigrant-receiving country. Cultural similarities and differences between the immigrants’ country of origin and the immigration country may also predict achievement and psychological adjustment (OECD, 2011). Children and adolescents who are refugees, especially those who have witnessed violence or have had an interrupted education, are especially vulnerable (Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011; Funk, Drew, Freeman, Faydi, & World Health Organization, 2010). Age of arrival in the immigrant-receiving country is another important factor to consider. Some believe that for high proficiency in the L2 to occur, one must be exposed to the L2 from a young age because children are better L2 learners than adults. However, research results do not provide definitive evidence for this belief, though it may be valid for certain aspects of L2 learning such as “foreign accent” (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003). Relatedly, the question of a critical period for L2 learning has been the subject of much debate in the literature, again with no clear-cut conclusions. Factors such as length and intensity of the instruction, motivation of the learners, and whether instruction and exposure to the L2 are continuous and massive appear to be important as well (Bongaerts, 1999; Carroll, 1975; Collins & White, 2011; Lapkin, Hart, & Harley, 1998). Results reported by PISA (2012) suggest that the older students are when they arrive in their new country, the lower their performance in reading at age 15 years and beyond. This is due to a variety of factors such as spending significant time in the education system in their country of origin where they likely learn in their first language (L1), experiencing a different curriculum, and using different instructional methods and expectations. Thus, immigration may mean not only having to learn a new language, but also adapting to new expectations at school. Arriving at an older age, however, does not automatically lead to lower academic achievement, as the type and quality of education received in the home country, and in the immigrant-receiving country, play a significant role. For example, Garnett, Adamuti-Trache, and Ungerleider (2008) analyzed achievement data of English-language learners (ELLs) in the sciences and humanities in BC, a Canadian province. They found that age of entering the school system in BC did not correlate with performance of immigrant students from China and Korea in mathematics, but did correlate negatively with their performance in high-school English. Moreover, the time spent in ELL classes was negatively correlated with math scores but positively correlated with English performance. These results suggest that prior high-level instruction in math in the country of origin can help overcome linguistic challenges when studying math in the immigrant-receiving country, but this advantage is not applicable to school subjects such as English, which draw more heavily on cultural and linguistic knowledge.

18

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

In general, the literature suggests that the most vulnerable immigrant students are those who arrive in the immigrant-receiving country in the latter part of childhood or as adolescents, who have poor proficiency in the societal language, and who are exposed to less demanding academic curricula and lower academic standards in their country of origin. Their difficulties are compounded if their parents have low levels of education, if they live below the poverty line in neighborhoods where most other children are similar to them, and if the immigrant-receiving country has “sink or swim” policies and does not put in place resources to support them, or if the policies are designed to exclude them, as is the case with the Roma children (see below). In other words, “Disadvantage is additive and multiplicative” (Garnett, 2010).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT ENHANCE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF CLD CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS The children of immigrants typically attend schools where the language of instruction (or the societal language) is different from the home language, and they may need extra support to master the language of instruction so that they can succeed at school (Stanat, Becker, Baumert, Lüdtke, & Eckhardt, 2012). It is estimated that at least half a grade level separates the reading skills of immigrant students who do not speak the language of instruction at home from those who do; some argue that this disadvantage is causally related to academic success, and that the focus needs to be on improving the language and reading skills in the language of the school quickly and efficiently (Stanat et al., 2012). On the other hand, Cummins (2012) has argued that enhancing proficiency in the L1 may be a resource for learning the L2, and thereby enhance educational outcomes (Cummins, 2005). He therefore advocates for continued support for the L1 at school. The research, however, is not entirely clear as to the best policies and practices that enhance academic achievement of CLD children and adolescents. The first question is whether bilingualism is valued and whether it is beneficial to enhance it (Butler & Hakuta, 2006; Ruiz, 1984). Ruiz has pointed out that in some contexts maintaining a home language is viewed as a right or as a resource, whereas in other contexts using the home language is seen as a problem. For example, in many parts of Canada, being able to speak both official languages (English and French) as well as other languages that are part of the multicultural community is viewed as positive for academic and career advancement. Consequently, children who are from English-speaking and immigrant homes often attend French immersion programs and after-school heritage language programs. But in other contexts, maintaining the L1 is not valued, and parents are strongly encouraged to speak to their children in the societal language, even if that is not their L1 or their better language (Butler & Hakuta, 2006; Hakuta & McLaughlin, 1996).

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

19

The question of whether bilingualism is beneficial or not has been addressed from cognitive, developmental, and sociocultural perspectives. It is a complex issue, and the answer is not that simple or straightforward, as a variety of methodological and theoretical factors may lead to different conclusions. For example, the majority of studies involving school children demonstrate that L2 learners have poorer language comprehension skills in their L2 than their L1 peers, but as we discuss in Chapter 3, this may not be true for all aspects of L2 learning including word reading accuracy and phonemic awareness (Geva & Herbert, 2012; Luk, DeSa, & Bialystok, 2011; Melby-Lervåg, & Lervåg, 2014). There is controversy about the educational merits of focusing on the development of proficiency in the societal (school) language versus a focus on maintaining and continuing to develop support for children’s home or heritage language (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). In the United States, there have been ongoing vigorous debates about whether children from Latino or other backgrounds who learn in two languages (Spanish and English) would have higher levels of academic achievement than those who learn only in English (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Some argue that to ensure that immigrant children thrive in the societal language, immigrant-receiving countries need to have policies that promote a solid language and literacy basis in the home language before a shift to the school language takes place (e.g., Cummins, 2012; Eisenchlas, Schalley, & Guillemin, 2013). A prominent theoretical model associated with this position is Cummins’s (1979) interdependence framework, which proposes that skills developed in the child’s home language can transfer and enhance learning in the societal language, and that students learn best when they can draw on knowledge that they already possess and that can be more easily discussed in their L1. Studies comparing bilingual education with English-only approaches, however, consistently find little or no difference in the rate at which students acquire fluency in English (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). It has also been pointed out that if bilingualism is not valued, a rapid loss of fluency in the home language will typically occur (see Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012; Cummins, 2005). Advocates of this approach argue that children of immigrants who learn in the home language before they are exposed to the societal language are academically more successful than those who do not receive a foundation in their home language prior to beginning instruction in their L2 (August & Shanahan, 2010; Cummins, 2012; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Proactive policies and institutional support designed to maintain the home language of CLD children and adolescents through bilingual and transition programs are informed by this theoretical framework, as are various bilingual programs promoted in some countries (Eisenchlas et al., 2013; Hakuta & McLaughlin, 1996; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). On the other hand, proponents of the “time on task” position maintain that high-quality instruction in the societal language is more efficient because CLD children and adolescents spend more time in learning it, and this should lead to more rapid development of the societal language and literacy skills, and better

20

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

academic achievement (Stanat & Christensen, 2006). Critics of such home language immersion programs acknowledge that there may be social, affective, and cognitive advantages for bilingualism in general, and for maintaining the home language in particular. However, they argue that given the messy results of studies that compared the advantages of bilingual or L1 first programs over those promoting only the societal language, it may be more prudent to target efficient ways of enhancing the societal language and L2 literacy skills, as these are crucial for academic success in the immigrant-receiving country (Marx & Stanat, 2012). It is also important to acknowledge that while L1 immersion and bilingual programs can be provided for children entering school in school systems where there are high concentrations of students speaking the same language, such programs are not practical where the immigrant CLD child and adolescent population is not homogeneous because many different home languages are present. Another question pertains to the objectives and methods of programs designed to foster language and literacy in the L2, and overall academic achievement. In this respect, it is useful to distinguish between programs that strive to transition CLD children and adolescents from their L1 to the societal language as quickly as possible (e.g., mainstream programs with English-as-a-secondlanguage instruction; transitional bilingual education; and newcomer programs) from programs that intend to promote and maintain the L1 while also promoting command of the societal language (e.g., developmental bilingual and two-way bilingual immersion programs; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). However, in many contexts, schools do not have programs to enhance language and literacy skills of children who enter school not speaking the societal language. Students simply attend regular education classes and acquire L2 skills incidentally from interacting with teachers and classmates. As will be discussed in depth in Chapter 3 of this book, these children may learn basic conversational language and reading decoding skills if they begin their schooling in the L2, but typically lag behind their classmates in L2 vocabulary development, academic language, reading comprehension, and writing skills. A report from PISA (2012) indicates that the gap between students who are born in the immigrant-receiving country and speak the L1 of that country, and immigrant students who arrive with minimal, if any, skills in the societal language increases with age. Furthermore, CLD adolescents who come from less developed countries with low educational standards have especially poor performance and are at high risk of not completing their high-school studies. The research clearly shows that it is important to provide formal and intensive intervention in language and literacy skills for immigrant students who are required to learn in their L2, and that this intervention is crucial for immigrants who arrive in later childhood and adolescence (Garnett, 2010; Jun, Ramirez, & Cumming, 2010; PISA, 2012). A recent report based on the PISA (2012) results suggests that it is especially important to provide intensive support to adolescent CLD newcomers who arrive

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

21

from less developed countries when they are at the beginning of high school and do not speak the language of the host country. In addition to facing the challenges involved in adjusting to a new social, cultural, and academic environment, they need to develop proficiency in the L2 and new academic skills quickly. Having poor reading comprehension and poor L2 skills at this stage is likely to have drastic debilitating implications for their subsequent schooling. The PISA (2012) report indicates that it is especially important to address this problem through policies and flexible and educational frameworks. Garnett (2009), for example, found that extending the opportunity to attend secondary school by 1 year led to significant increases in the proportion of immigrant students who completed high school. The Pathways to Education program, which began in a community in Toronto that provides housing for low-income families, is an example of an innovative and effective intervention for these adolescents. Pathways to Education is an after-school program that provides a comprehensive set of academic, financial, and social supports to CLD adolescents attending local high schools. Many of these students also take English as a second language classes in their schools. Pathways supports include the following: contracts with students and parents to attend the program regularly, with the incentive being financial support for postsecondary education; volunteers who provide afterschool tutoring in core academic subjects; group mentoring activities to enhance social skills, problem-solving, and career planning; and one-to-one support by staff for families. This program has reduced high-school dropout rates by almost 70% and tripled the rate at which vulnerable CLD youth pursue postsecondary education. (For more details, see Pathways to Education, n.d.). (See the Appendix, Aisha Case Study 6, for a description of an application of this program.) Psychologists need to be aware of policies regarding support for CLD students in their countries and consider the issues discussed above regarding the effectiveness of support for these children and adolescents. Some CLD children who require the services of psychologists may have better developed L1 and L2 skills than others. In addition, some communities and schools provide specific interventions for these children and teens, whereas others do not. In some jurisdictions, home language maintenance and bilingualism are seen as an advantage, and these attitudes are reflected in education policies and practices, while in others problems that children have in developing adequate language and literacy skills and in achieving academically are attributed primarily to inadequate command of the societal language (see Chapter 3). It is also important to be mindful of age of arrival and interrupted schooling.

NONIMMIGRANT VULNERABLE MINORITY GROUPS The bulk of this chapter and the literature addressed in this book have focused on the assessment of CLD children who are immigrants and refugees. In many

22

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

OECD countries, however, there are vulnerable or marginalized racial or ethnic minority groups who are not immigrants or refugees and who, for ethnic, religious, or linguistic reasons, suffer discrimination and do not enjoy equitable education (UNESCO, 2005). Although the focus of this book is on strategies for assessing immigrant and refugee children and adolescents, we describe briefly some of the challenges experienced by two of these groups: aboriginal/indigenous peoples and the Roma. We are discussing some of the issues and policies in relation to these populations because they live in several OECD countries and they vary in academic achievement, employment status, and social integration, depending on the attitudes and policies of the countries in which they live. Furthermore, psychologists who work in OECD countries may have referrals of children who are members of these minority groups, and must be aware of the challenges they face. Although the strategies we discuss in this book are based on research conducted with CLD children and adolescents who are immigrants or refugees, many of these strategies also apply to these nonimmigrant vulnerable populations.

Aboriginal Peoples: A Snapshot It is important to acknowledge the linguistic and cultural diversity of the aboriginal people who live in several areas of the world and whose languages and cultures existed, and in many instances flourished, prior to European colonization. These peoples include the Inuit and the Metis of Canada, numerous groups of First Nations people who lived in North America and South America prior to the arrival of Europeans and continue to live in these locations, the Maoris of New Zealand, the Indigenous People of Australia, and the Sami groups who live in the arctic area of the Scandinavian countries, Finland, and Russia. Although there are regional differences, these aboriginal people have their own languages, and in most of these countries they may also speak the language of the schools and dominant society. The right of minority groups to maintain their own language has been recognized by UNESCO (1960) and the United Nations (1966), but questions pertaining to language maintenance and the language of instruction of aboriginal/indigenous people is a sensitive one. For example, in Canada, neither the Canadian Constitution nor federal and provincial laws address questions pertaining to aboriginal languages (Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, n.d.). Aboriginal people make up roughly 4.5% of the global population but about 10% of the world’s poor. Aboriginal populations in different countries and regions, however, differ in terms of SES and education outcomes (Hall & Patrinos, 2010), with aboriginal students faring relatively well in countries such as New Zealand and very poorly in certain regions of Canada and the United States (Hall & Patrinos, 2010). In some Asian countries, there has been progress in poverty reduction for indigenous peoples. In general, aboriginal people suffer

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

23

from higher poverty, lower education, and a greater incidence of disease and discrimination than other groups. For example, Canada has an aboriginal population of approximately 1.5 million. Less than half (48.4%) of aboriginal people in Canada, age 25 to 64, have some kind of postsecondary education, in comparison with 64.7% of the non-aboriginal population (Statistics Canada, 2011). Although a higher proportion of younger aboriginal people (age 35–44 years) had completed at least high school, compared with older aboriginal people (age 55–64 years), overall high school completion rates are very low compared to the Canadian population as a whole (66% aboriginal, 85% Canadian population). There are also regional differences: Only 28.2% of the Inuit living within Inuit Nunangat (the area that is mostly above the Arctic Circle typically inhabited by Inuit people) reported some kind of postsecondary qualification compared to Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat (53.3%; Statistics Canada, 2011). As might be expected given the low level of educational attainment of Canadian Aboriginals, the employment rate for aboriginals is considerably lower than that for non-aboriginals, and they have a much higher rate of chronic diseases. Though there are regional and band differences, the overall rate of suicide among First Nation communities in Canada is about double that of the general Canadian population, but for those aged 10 to 29 years it is five to six times higher than that in the general population. The suicide rate of the Inuit is 6 to 11 times higher than that in the general population (Kirmayer et al., 2007). The suicide rate among the aboriginal youth in Australia is likewise much higher than that in the general population (Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory, 2012). There are several reasons why Canadian Aboriginals have such poor outcomes in comparison to the general Canadian population. Some of these reasons are historical; many Canadian Aboriginal children as young as 5 years of age were removed from their homes to residential schools where their culture was disparaged and they were punished for using their native language. They also suffered physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in these schools (Milloy, 1999). The health of children in these schools was negatively impacted (Loppie & Wien, 2009; Wiener, 2011). This occurred for a period of 60 years, and affected multiple generations of children. Although approximately half of the aboriginal population currently lives in urban settings, a substantial proportion lives in communities (called reserves), many of which have a harsh climate and few opportunities for employment. Some of these communities do not have sufficient housing for the residents, are not on the electricity grid, and do not have safe drinking water. In addition, and most importantly, there are social and policy issues that affect their outcomes. Some aboriginals, those who are “Status Indians,” are subject to discriminatory and paternalistic legislation called the “Indian Act,” and are still involved in long-standing negotiations for treaty rights to their lands. Furthermore, the schools on the reserves are funded by the federal government, which provides only two thirds of the funding that is typically provided to other schools that are funded and governed provincially (Simeone, 2011).

24

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

The indicators of health and academic achievement for the Maoris of New Zealand were marginally better than Canadian Aboriginals in 2008, likely in part because they live in communities that are less isolated than in Canada. The Maoris’ educational outcomes, however, have improved considerably since then. Although some Canadian communities have engaged in important initiatives to improve educational and health outcomes among aboriginals, there is no national strategy. New Zealand, on the other hand, has made educational achievement of Maori students a national priority (Education Review Office, 2010). In 2008, New Zealand developed a strategy called “Ka Hikitia”—Managing for Success, with the goal of transforming the educational system to ensure that all Maori students are successful academically. This strategy involves tracking school attendance, engagement, and achievement regularly; promoting cultural identity and language maintenance; and supporting school initiatives to implement strategies that have been shown to be successful such as building teachers’ understanding of Maori language and culture, establishing mentor programs, involving students in goal setting and highlighting role models, and having personal contact with parents and extended family. Importantly, they currently educate all children in New Zealand about Maori history, language, and culture. It is also notable that the Maori language has been one of the official languages of New Zealand since 1987. A thorough discussion of language and cultural protection and maintenance measures, as well as related education and economic policies, in countries with aboriginal populations is beyond the scope of this chapter. The least that we can do here is acknowledge the complexity of issues pertaining to language and literacy in aboriginal peoples, the debates about language and cultural maintenance and enhancement, and the lack of adequate policies concerning their education, SES, and mental health issues. Of relevance to this book is the fact that some aboriginal people do not speak their ancestral language, but some do to varying extents, and others may in fact be more fluent in the ancestral language. Some are highly educated and some are not. Some are committed to maintaining their ancestral way of life, but some are more ambivalent. Some live in big cities and some live in remote communities that are fairly homogenous in terms of language and culture. There is also diversity in political and economic processes and different degrees of victimization and discrimination.

The Roma: A Snapshot Traditionally semi-nomadic, the Roma came to Europe about 1,000 years ago from northern India, and became more settled in the beginning of the 20th century. It is estimated that about 8 to 12 million Roma people live in Europe. The Roma are considered to be Europe’s largest minority, but they do not have a “homeland.” In most countries, the Roma may also speak the societal language, in addition to their language, Romani. Some Roma groups have not maintained

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

25

the use of Romani either voluntarily or because of enforced assimilation policies (Brüggemann & Bloem, 2013). Because of inadequate access to resources, the Roma typically have low-skill levels, and are often unemployed. For example, in Slovakia 70% of Roma are unemployed, as are 85% of Roma in the Czech Republic. Even when they are hired they are often dismissed when employers find out that they are Roma. When Roma children reach school age the negative effects of the disadvantages they have experienced since birth are evident; they are not ready for school, and most drop out before completing secondary school. Some do not enroll in school since their birth has never been registered (UNICEF, 2007a). Even though children have the right to their culture and identity, school systems in Central and Eastern Europe typically do not promote appreciation of diversity and intercultural understanding. The Roma plight is partly rooted in the perception of “otherness” of their lifestyle and values, and Roma distrust of government and of outside help. In spite of being the largest minority in Europe (Brüggemann & Bloem, 2013), Roma children are underrepresented in international assessments. For example, in the 2009 PISA assessment only Slovakia collected sufficient data about 15-year-old Roma adolescents (Brüggemann & Bloem, 2013). These data show that Romani speaking students perform more poorly than Slovak and Hungarian children, and indicate that Roma students experience multiple disadvantages with regard to preschool participation, school entry, grade repetition, and learning outcomes. Roma are overrepresented in special education and special schools for students with mental disabilities (Friedman, Kriglerová, Kubánová, & Slosiarik, 2009; UNICEF, 2007a). In 2007, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the placement of Romani children in special schools for the mentally disabled was an act of discrimination, and in 2013 it ruled that Hungary violated the rights of Romani children by deeming them as learning disabled and placing them in separate, low-level schools (Roma Education Fund, 2012). Since the fall of communism in 1989 and the European Union’s (EU) eastward expansion, European governments are being encouraged to develop and implement EU policies that require giving Roma the same rights as other citizens (Miszei, 2012; Tanner, 2005). Despite some positive changes in the treatment of Roma in Europe such as granting them minority status, encouraging the establishment of Roma political parties and cultural organizations, and publication of books and newspapers in their language, the Roma’s problems are acute, especially in Eastern and central Europe. While the Roma now have recognition of minority status, they have inadequate access to government services and health care, not to mention quality housing and schools, and face high rates of unemployment and harassment (Miszei, 2012; Tanner, 2005). As a result, some Roma emigrate from Eastern Europe and claim refugee status in other OECD countries such as the United Kingdom, Scandinavian countries, Spain, and Canada.

26

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Roma emigration from countries such as Slovakia and Hungary has decreased recently, due to some improvements in their situation in their home countries, as well as application of stricter criteria for screening asylum seekers and the “safe countries” principle in several immigrant-receiving countries (Tanner, 2005). In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the Roma among international agencies such as the World Bank, the Open Society Institute, and the Roma Education Fund, which have taken an increasing interest in promoting the health and education of Roma children (Hajioff & McKee, 2000). However, there is very little research concerning mental health and disability issues among Roma children and adolescents (Lee, Bifoi, Yoon, Pez, & Kovess Masfety, 2012). In 2010, the European Commission endorsed the European Union Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies. This framework encourages EU governments to undertake comprehensive plans designed to enhance social inclusion and improve the well-being of their Romani citizens. Nevertheless, it appears that in reality not much has been done, and in fact their situation may have gotten worse in certain European countries (Miszei, 2012). In contrast to the challenges experienced by the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, some Roma, who immigrated to the United States in the middle of the 19th century, are well integrated and well educated. This may be because Americans in the United States are largely unaware of the cultural and historical prejudices about Roma that are held by Europeans. Roma living in the United States tend to be cautious about the stigma associated with their heritage (Webley, 2010), but they do not experience discrimination or bigotry as they do in Europe (Kates & Gergely, 2011). As a result, the social and economic position of Roma in the United States is much more favorable than in Europe; many Roma run successful, family owned businesses, and on the whole blend seamlessly into the community.

Implications Similar to CLD immigrant and refugee children and adolescents, many aboriginal and Roma children, as well as other children from marginalized groups, are vulnerable in terms of their educational, language, psychological, social, and economic outcomes. Consequently, regardless of country of residence, many of the topics and assessment strategies that are addressed in the following chapters of this book also pertain to children and adolescents from minority groups who struggle with a school language that is different from the language of the home; with academic learning; with extreme poverty; with the outcomes of education policies that fail to respond to their cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic needs; and with various socioemotional needs related to their persecution, discrimination, and poverty (Lee et al., 2012). Hopefully, this book will help to reduce prejudice and bias in the delivery of professional services, and increase the sensitivity of school and clinical

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

27

psychologists in OECD countries to the educational and mental health issues of children and adolescents from aboriginal, Roma, and other minority heritage groups. Psychologists should strive to tease apart the contributions of L2 status, poverty, and lack of opportunities to learn and receive quality education from disabilities or other mental health problems that hinder their ability to learn. They should strive to ensure the rights of aboriginal, Roma, and other vulnerable children to receive equitable, culturally sensitive, and appropriate supports and services for low-academic achievement and emotional and behavioral challenges.

SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION FOR CLD CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS It is important for psychologists to be aware of the policies regarding special needs education in the countries in which they work so that they can effectively advocate for the provision of appropriate services for all students, including those who are CLD. Although this is important, it is beyond the scope of this book to provide an analysis of policies in any single immigrant or refugee receiving country (see Al-Yagon et al., 2013, for a review of policies in the United States, Australia, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom; and Kozey & Siegel, 2008, for a review of policies in Canada). Instead, we focus on several principles that are inherent in the policies governing the provision of an education to CLD children and adolescents with special educational needs. These principles, which are complementary, are equity, due process, and inclusion. In order to aid psychologists with examining the legislation and other policies in their jurisdictions, we provide a list of questions they should consider in Table 2.2. We also describe the impact of special needs education policies on individual children and adolescents in several case studies in the Appendix (Boris, Case Study 2; Diego, Case Study 3). Prior to discussing each of these principles, we provide a definition of special needs education that is accepted internationally. The term special needs education has come into use internationally as a replacement for the term special education. (The older term was mainly understood to refer to the education of children with disabilities that takes place in special schools or institutions distinct from, and outside of, the institutions of the regular school and postsecondary education system.) The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED; UNESCO, 1997) defined special needs education as educational intervention and support designed to address special educational needs. According to the ISCED definition, the concept of “children with special educational needs” covers students who are failing in school for a wide variety of reasons that are known to be likely to impede a child’s optimal progress, including disabilities, difficulties, and disadvantages. The first category of “special needs education”—disabilities—refers to students with disabilities conceptualized in medical, organic terms such as sensory, motor, or neurological

28

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 2.2 Questions Psychologists Should Consider When Analyzing Special Needs Education Legislation and Policies in Their Jurisdictions Do the legislation and policies: 1. Conform to the principle of equity? 2. Provide for a range of supports and placements for students with special educational needs? 3. Indicate that whenever possible students with special educational needs should be educated in the general education classroom with supports provided in that classroom? 4. Require that students with special educational needs be diagnosed with a disability or clinical disorder? 5. Allow for provision of special needs education to students with difficulties and disadvantages as well as those with disabilities? 6. Have mechanisms for parents of students with special educational needs and older students to participate in decision making regarding the supports their children require? 7. Allow for students with special educational needs to receive publicly funded education prior to the normal age of school entry and beyond the normal age of school leaving? 8. Have mechanisms for due process? 9. Provide accommodations for assessments such as school examinations? 10. Require that postsecondary institutions provide accommodations for students with special educational needs? 11. Allow for flexibility in the application of procedures in the case of CLD students? CLD, culturally and linguistically diverse.

defects. The educational needs of children in this category are presumed to arise primarily from problems attributable to organic factors. The second category— difficulties—refers to children and adolescents with behavioral or emotional disorders, or those with specific difficulties in learning. Their educational needs are presumed to arise primarily from problems in the interaction between the student and the educational context. The third category—disadvantages—refers to needs arising primarily from socioeconomic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors. The educational needs of children in this category involve compensation for disadvantages attributable to socioeconomic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors (OECD, 2007). The three terms are believed to broadly describe the students who require some kind of additional resources over and above what is typical in a given education system. Such additional resources are supposed to enhance access of children to the curriculum (OECD, 2007). These categories can also be

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

29

combined, as would be the case with CLD children and adolescents who have a disability or behavior disorder.

Equity and Due Process Since 1948, world bodies have recognized the right of all children to an education. The quotation below from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the basis for the equitable provision of education to all children from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Everyone has the right to education . . . . Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Education shall be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (United Nations, 1948, art. 26) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; United Nations, 1989) recognized the human rights of all children, including those with disabilities (UNICEF, 2007b). Building on the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Assembly (United Nations, 2008) provided a powerful impetus for promoting the human rights of all children with disabilities to receive appropriate education. This means that CLD children and adolescents with disabilities are entitled to the services they might access if their needs were appropriately identified by a culturally sensitive and well-informed assessment. This assertion is supported by a range of policy papers starting with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and echoed in the American Psychological Association (APA) Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations, UNICEF documents such as Promoting the Rights of Children With Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and laws pertaining to children, diversity, and special needs in OECD countries such as the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004) and the Civil Rights Act in the United States, and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Another key international human rights document that emphasizes the active elimination of discrimination is the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960). This document suggests that all children have the right to receive the kind of education that does not discriminate against them on any grounds, including caste, ethnicity, religion, SES, refugee status, language, gender, or disability. It states further that the State is responsible for undertaking measures to implement these rights in all learning environments (UNESCO,

30

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

2005). The principles guiding this rights-based approach are: (a) access to free and compulsory education; (b) equality, inclusion, and nondiscrimination; and (c) the right to quality education, content, and processes. Policies regarding special needs education often stipulate specific criteria for providing specialized services for students with special educational needs (e.g., IDEA, 2004). In many jurisdictions, these students must be diagnosed with a disability or behavior disorder in accordance with the stipulated criteria. As previously discussed in relation to placement of the Roma in Eastern and Central Europe in special education classes for children with intellectual disabilities, and in Chapter 3 in relation to overidentification and under-identification of a learning disability among L2 students, it is very important that policies are put in place that enable parents of CLD children and adolescents and their representatives or advocates to have input into these decisions and to appeal them when appropriate.

Inclusion The development of the field of special education underwent a series of stages where education systems explored ways of responding to the needs of children and adolescents with disabilities and difficulties in learning. In some jurisdictions, special education supplements general education as part of the regular classes; in others, special education is entirely separate, offered in special schools or special classes. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this chapter and in Chapter 3, some CLD students receive no services. More recently, triggered by a human rights perspective as well as concerns about effectiveness, the appropriateness of separate, segregated systems of education for those with disabilities and learning and behavioral difficulties has been questioned (UNESCO, 2005). Research in OECD and non-OECD countries suggests that students with disabilities often have better achievement in inclusive than in segregated settings. Moreover, inclusive education helps to promote “social networks, norms of reciprocity, mutual assistance and trustworthiness” (UNESCO, 2005). Nevertheless, it is recognized that for some students with disabilities it may be more beneficial to provide education in segregated settings than in regular schools (UNESCO, 2005). In the last two decades, special education practices gradually moved into the mainstream through policies that follow the principle of inclusion, in which children with special educational needs are included and supported in regular classrooms whenever possible. One of the key principles of inclusive education is the stipulation that placement of children with special educational needs in regular classrooms should be accompanied by changes in the organization of the school, the curriculum, and teaching and learning strategies. As discussed in a document produced by UNESCO (2005), schools need to be reformed and teaching strategies improved so that individual differences and student diversity

2. DEMOGRAPHIC, POLICY, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

31

are not seen as problems to be fixed, but rather as opportunities for enriching learning (UNESCO, 2005). It is important to note that research evidence does not strongly support the view that all children with special educational needs benefit from being included in regular education classrooms with accommodations and curriculum modifications provided in that setting. We identified four meta-analyses of placement outcome studies (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Elbaum, 2002; Wang & Baker, 1985) and a literature review examining the findings of studies that were done following these meta-analyses (Lindsay, 2007). The studies covered by these reviews typically examined three types of child outcomes—academic achievement, self-concept, and social acceptance. The participants were students in preschool and school settings who had identified disabilities. On most outcomes, findings from these meta-analyses and the subsequent studies generally indicated a positive effect of inclusion or no difference between more or less inclusive placements, with most effect sizes being small (d = .08 to .28) with the exception of the Wang and Baker metaanalysis where a moderate effect size (d = .44) was found for academic outcomes (Lindsay, 2007). Especially in relation to young children in child care settings, children with severe disabilities benefited from more inclusive placements. Very few studies, however, have found that more segregated placements were advantageous. The bulk of the studies that compared various placements were done in North America, where there are relatively few segregated special education schools. The comparisons were generally between special education classes in regular schools, withdrawing children from the regular classroom where they spent most of the school day to a resource room for specific instruction in areas of difficulty, and providing support fully within the regular education classroom. As indicated by Lindsay (2007), the studies did not involve randomized allocation of children to placements; although sample sizes were generally adequate, there were often several children with special educational needs in a single class, confounding placement with teacher and classroom variables. It is therefore possible, if not likely, that some of those teacher and classroom variables, which have been found to be associated with positive outcomes in relation to inclusion of students with special educational needs in regular education classrooms, influenced the results. As discussed in Chapter 7, teacher attitudes strongly influence the degree to which they implement effective practices to teach students with special educational needs in inclusive settings. They also must have adequate training in using universal design, differentiated instruction techniques, and evidencebased interventions to teach these students effectively. It should be noted that there is no research that has examined these placement and efficacy issues with respect to CLD students, though there is no reason to expect that the results would be different.

32

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

CONCLUSION On average, the proportion of foreign-born individuals in OECD countries averages 11% of the population, with an even higher percentage of the school population being first or second generation immigrants or refugees. In many instances, these students study in their L2. In addition, in some OECD countries there are other CLD groups that are vulnerable. In this chapter, we reviewed some of the political and sociocultural factors that influence their academic achievement, educational attainment, and well-being. This review suggests that policies that affect access to services and quality education, as well as specific interventions that supplement regular interventions, may mitigate some of the risk factors. It is clear from the previous discussion that CLD children and adolescents with special educational needs are entitled to access services and education that are commensurate with their needs. Developing equitable education that can respond in a sensitive manner to the special educational needs of CLD children and adolescents is not an easy task to achieve. Various elements are required for their needs to be met. According to the OECD (2003) these elements should include recognizing and planning for diversity; using accountability and evaluation for system improvement; professional development of teachers and other staff; external support services; within-school support services; cooperation between schools; parent and community involvement; school organization and management; and opportunities for whole school development. Psychologists should be aware of the cultural and linguistic diversity in their communities, and the legislation and policies that affect their education and access to services. They should also play a pivotal role in consulting with school systems and other agencies to ensure that the previously listed elements are in place.

Research on the Development of Language and Literacy Skills of L2 Learners: Implications for Assessment CHAPTER 3:

T

he question of how to identify second-language (L2) children and adolescents who have a learning disability (LD) has been controversial and challenging due to factors related to overidentification of L2 as LD (Cummins, 1984) and under-identification of L2 with LD (Limbos & Geva, 2001).1 Overidentification has been attributed to biased assessment assumptions and processes (Cummins, 1984), whereas underidentification has been related to injudicious attribution of learning difficulties of L2 children to lack of L2 proficiency or to cultural differences (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Clearly, one would want to avoid both types of errors. The overall issue we address in this chapter is how to determine whether learning difficulties of L2 learners are a result of inadequate proficiency in the societal language, or due to an LD. In the past, the thinking was that this differentiation could not occur reliably until the L2 learner had sufficient opportunities to develop adequate levels of L2 proficiency (Cummins, 1984). This precaution led to delays in the assessment, identification, and treatment of L2 children and adolescents who, in addition to struggling with the challenges of learning to communicate and function in a new language, also had an LD. This is a complex and sensitive problem, but findings from developmental research conducted in the past two decades have shed light on our understanding of which aspects of literacy development and cognitive processes that underlie LD are closely tied to attainment of adequate levels of L2 proficiency, and which characteristics are less so. This research, which has drawn attention to features of typical and atypical L2 language and literacy development, can help psychologists, other mental health professionals, and educators to understand the characteristics of typical development of language and literacy skills of L2 children and adolescents, what aspects of the assessment are associated with L2 proficiency, and what aspects

34

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

may be indicative of a LD or language impairment regardless of L2 proficiency. We demonstrate how this research can be used to guide case formulation in three case studies in the Appendix (Diego, Case Study 3; Khalil, Case Study 4; and Aisha, Case Study 6). We begin this chapter with a model that helps to organize information about the development of literacy and language skills of typically and atypically developing L2 children and adolescents, and that provides a backdrop for understanding the challenges faced by L2 learners2 who, in addition to having to develop language and literacy skills in the L2, may also have a LD. This framework, which is depicted in Figure 3.1, integrates research based on a theory called the Simple View of Reading (SVR), as well as research on the development of everyday language skills required for academic achievement, cross-language transfer, and cognitive, socioemotional, contextual, sociocultural, home, and family factors that contribute to L2 language and literacy development. The second section provides an overview of research on typical and atypical language and literacy development of L2 learners and the implications for assessment of LD in L2. The chapter ends with a table that provides a summary of key research findings (Table 3.1), and a table

ite ily L

Ph Aw onem are ic nes L1 s Lite rac y L1 Lan gua ge

Schoo ling Onse t Age

Morp holog

y

x nta Sy

ry

bul a

Vo ca

School t Tex res tu truc res rd Wo ing S Gen & ad Re ency u l &F pts nce Co Print of nds Sou cs r e i t Let Phon ge & led now K nd rou ckg a B tion gni Co

ies lic od Po rho bo igh

tics

Fa m

Text Fluency

Ne

ma

n

L2 L1 & gy lo Typo ation Motiv des Attitu

Pra g

tio uc

ng on i adi Re hens re ies p m teg o C a Str

str

Lan mp guag reh e ens ion

Co

In

ra cy

L2 Reading Comprehension

Figure 3.1 A framework for understanding reading comprehension in L2 learners.

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

35

that lists fundamental questions that school and clinical child psychologists should consider in their work with L2 learners (Table 3.2).

A MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN L2 LEARNERS Given that oral language proficiency (OLP) and literacy are the foundations for most academic learning, understanding the language and cognitive processes, as well as the environmental factors that contribute to language and literacy development, guides psychologists’ assessments of L2 learners who are struggling in school. Figure 3.1 provides a model that summarizes the components of language and literacy and their interrelationships, and has implications for the types of data psychologists collect when assessing L2 learners and how they interpret the data. As shown in this figure, reading comprehension is at the top of the hierarchy. This is because the main goal of reading is to extract meaning from printed text (Chall, 1996; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The center parts of the pyramid are based on a well-researched theory called the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), which has received strong support as an explanation of individual differences in reading comprehension in firstlanguage (L1) learners. The remainder of the pyramid comprises individual and environmental factors that are important in understanding individual differences in reading comprehension of L2 learners including language typology, cognitive processes, and contextual, sociocultural, and home factors that are relevant to L2 language and literacy learning.

Simple View of Reading Various models have been offered to describe and understand the source of individual differences in reading comprehension ability (e.g., Carr & Levy, 1990; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Stanovich, 1980). One prevalent and parsimonious model of reading comprehension is the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). The SVR model is useful for thinking of important components that contribute to individual differences in reading comprehension and writing, although it does not specifically refer to writing. According to the SVR, reading comprehension is the product of language comprehension skills (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, morphology, and listening comprehension) and accurate and fluent word-level skills (e.g., reading isolated words, decoding unfamiliar or pseudowords, spelling). Simply put, to become good comprehenders children need to understand the spoken language, to be able to “read the words on the page,” and to understand how spoken language is represented in print. The SVR has received considerable research support in relation to children and adolescents learning to read in their L1 (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Catts, Adolf, & Ellis Weismer, 2006; Joshi & Aaron, 2000; Kendeou, Savage, & van den Broek,

36

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

2009; Parrila, Kirby, & McQuarrie, 2004), and L2 (e.g., Erdos, Genesee, Savage, & Haigh, 2011; Geva & Farnia, 2012; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Kahn-Horwitz, Shimron, & Sparks, 2005; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2007; Pasquarella, Gottardo, & Grant, 2012; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). To illustrate how this works, think of a group of L2 learners who have all come from similar immigrant, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, and have been similarly exposed to language and literacy skills in their L2 and their L1. What we learn from research conducted within the SVR framework is that individual differences in reading comprehension in this group of L2 learners will be highly related to two clusters of skills: (a) a cluster that involves individual differences in word-level skills (and known predictors of word-level reading skills such as phonemic awareness and rapid automatized naming, RAN), and (b) a cluster that involves individual differences in aspects of language comprehension, including vocabulary, morphology, grammatical knowledge, and the ability to comprehend spoken language. These two clusters of skills, which visually capture the SVR, appear in the center of Figure 3.1. The components listed in the SVR are developmental in nature. For example, phonemic awareness involves the ability to understand that words can be divided into small units or phonemes (e.g., that the word cat can be divided into three sounds /k/ /æ/ /t/, and that if one were to replace the /k/ phoneme with the /m/ phoneme, the new word would be mat). Once this metalinguistic skill has been acquired, it helps to form the basis for other, more advanced skills such as recognizing the letters of the alphabet and learning which phoneme(s) correspond to each letter in the target language. Additional relevant insights regarding the SVR come from longitudinal studies that have examined predictors of reading comprehension over time. It turns out that what predicts reading comprehension is not static, and that the relative role of decoding and language comprehension skills for reading comprehension changes with development. Longitudinal studies of L1 learners have shown that performance in word-level reading skills in the early school years is a key predictor of reading comprehension in later years. However, beyond the primary grades, as word-level reading skills become fluent, language skills take over as more reliable predictors of reading comprehension (e.g., Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Francis et al., 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). This general observation is supported by studies involving L2 learners who have been schooled in the L2 in primary and middle school (Geva & Farnia, 2012; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). However, a study by Pasquarella et al. (2012) underscores the importance of considering the age of onset, that is, the age at which exposure to the L2 begins, and potentially related maturational and critical period effects (García Mayo & Lecumberri, 2003; Granena & Long, 2013; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Seliger, Krashen, & Ladefoged, 1975). Pasquarella et al. reported that when L2 learners are only exposed to the L2 (English) in adolescence, both English word-reading skills and OLP play an

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

37

important role in L2 reading comprehension, even though this is not the case when English-language learners (ELLs) are first exposed to English language and reading skills in the primary grades. The SVR framework is useful for conceptualizing and understanding sources of risk for reading and writing difficulties (Catts et al., 2006; Torppa et al., 2007). It is possible to identify L1 and L2 learners whose problematic reading comprehension and writing are related primarily to persistent difficulties in developing accurate and fluent word reading or spelling skills, and those whose problems are primarily related to persistent language comprehension difficulties that extend beyond the normal processes associated with the development of OLP (Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013). Difficulties in either area can hinder reading comprehension, as can individual differences in working memory, reading fluency, background knowledge, and metacognitive strategies. Using the SVR as a strategy for identifying reading disabilities is clinically relevant, and may help to determine the assessment strategies (including standardized tests and other tasks) that psychologists use. Of course, it is also important to consider the various ways in which language skills may inform assessment and intervention decisions. While the center of Figure 3.1 captures the SVR, the panels surrounding it show that learning to read in the L2 is not that simple, and that other factors impinge on reading achievement of L2 learners. These include L1 influences on L2 learning, the distinction between everyday language and academic language, the nature and extent of prior educational experiences, and other aspects of cognition and motivation, as well as contextual and policy issues.

Specific Issues in L2 Language Development Two aspects of the language development of L2 learners are important to consider: (a) the distinction between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), and (b) cross-language transfer. We explain these aspects of language development and the research that supports them below, and refer to them throughout the book when we discuss specific strategies for assessing OLP and academic achievement.

BICS and CALP As shown in Figure 3.1, language comprehension is a strong predictor of reading comprehension in L1 and L2 children and adolescents. As it takes a long time to develop L2 language skills, it is important to consider the difference between proficiency in everyday language and the attainment of academic language proficiency. A well-known model offered by Cummins (1979) distinguishes between “BICS” and “CALP.” BICS refers to the language people need for everyday

38

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

interpersonal communication, and CALP refers to the academic language students need to access academic materials and the demands of higher-order cognitive processes. It is useful to think of BICS and CALP as reflecting a continuum that relates to the amount of contextual support required to understand language, and the extent of cognitive and linguistic demands presented by the task or situation. An illustration of context-embedded BICS is the social language typically used by L2 adolescents in the school cafeteria. Because this social language is used in daily interactions among people who share the context, some information can be understood even though it is implicit. For example, when entering the school cafeteria an adolescent L2 learner, who has minimal English proficiency and inadequate skills for producing grammatically complex sentences, is likely to respond appropriately by saying “OK” to the suggestion “Do you want to sit with me?” In this example, thanks to the shared context and the everyday language used, the message will be completely understood. On the other hand, the sentence “The explorers were worried because their navigation equipment was lost in the storm” requires CALP to comprehend it. This sentence is longer, it is grammatically complex, it expresses causality, it includes vocabulary items that are relatively infrequent in common everyday language (e.g., explorers, navigation, equipment), and the content is “decontextualized”—it does not involve the “here and now,” so it may be harder to infer word meanings. Awareness of the distinction between BICS and CALP is important because even if L2 learners can comprehend and express themselves fluently when they communicate about everyday topics (i.e., BICS), or when they read simple texts, many continue to struggle with the decontextualized text they read in books or on the Internet, with the fast-paced language of instructional YouTube videos, and with the academic language used in a science class (CALP). Their command of the L2 may not be sufficient to enable them to fully understand age-appropriate academic vocabulary and grammatically complex sentences, and to integrate new information when reading or writing (though, depending on their educational history, they may be able to comprehend similar material in their L1; Cummins, 2012). The research literature on the development of L2 proficiency provides ample empirical support for the importance of being aware of the demands of academic language (Lin, Ramírez, Shade, & Geva, 2012; Roessingh & Elgie, 2009). For example, Grade 9 to 10 adolescent ELLs living in a low socioeconomic status (SES), highly vulnerable neighborhood were typically familiar with the kind of academic English vocabulary that English as L1 (EL1), middle class students are familiar with in the primary grades (e.g., fresh, arm), but were unfamiliar with Grade 9 to 10 appropriate academic vocabulary (e.g., hypothesis, industrious, and tend; Lin et al., 2012). The fact that there was such a major gap in their academic vocabulary, even though they seemed to be rather fluent when it came to everyday language, has serious academic implications because poor performance on

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

39

various aspects of OLP in general, and poor vocabulary in particular, is associated with difficulties in reading comprehension and writing (e.g., Alderson, 2000; Freebody & Anderson, 1983, for research on L1, and Bernhardt & Kamil, 2006; Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovsk, 2010, for research on L2 learners). The implication of this study is that it could be challenging to determine the reasons for poor performance of L2 learners on reading comprehension tests: Poor performance may be due to underlying comprehension problems, insufficient L2 proficiency, and inadequate schooling.

Cross-Language Transfer The extent to which children’s L1 influences performance in the L2 has been the subject of numerous studies. This influence is often discussed in terms of crosslanguage transfer, a central theme in the study of language and literacy development in L2 learners. Odlin (1989, p. 27) defines L1–L2 transfer as “the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.” The notion of L1–L2 transfer has been examined from a number of different theoretical perspectives. In this chapter, we discuss L1–L2 transfer from three complementary theoretical orientations: the typological (or contrastive) perspective (Lado, 1957), the interdependence perspective (Cummins, 1981), and the underlying cognitive processes perspective (Geva & Ryan, 1993; for a more detailed discussion see Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006). Each of these perspectives is helpful for psychologists who assess L2 learners as they inform interpretation of L2 learners’ errors. The typological perspective on transfer is captured in Figure 3.1 in the “L1 & L2 Typology” panel. The typological perspective stipulates that the process of learning an L2 may be (partially) related to the extent to which features of the L1 and L2 are similar. Languages that are typologically similar (e.g., English– Spanish, Dutch–German) share more structures in terms of the spoken or written language than do languages that are typologically distant (e.g., English vs. Arabic or Chinese). When the L1 and L2 are similar, learners of the L2 may make fewer errors because there are common features shared between the L1 and L2, and L2 learners may be able to use their knowledge of spoken or written structures in the L1 when developing proficiency in the L2 (i.e., positive transfer). When the structures in the L2 differ considerably from those in the L1, certain types of errors may be more likely to occur in the developing L2 (i.e., negative transfer). Ample research has examined, from a typological perspective, the contribution of transfer from the L1 to the acquisition of specific L2 oral and written language features. Bialystok, Majumder, and Martin (2003) found that Spanish–English emerging bilingual children outperformed Chinese–English emerging bilinguals on English phonemic awareness tasks, and this advantage was attributed to the relative similarity of the phonemic structures of Spanish

40

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

and English in contrast to those of Chinese. Another type of positive transfer concerns the use of cognate words, that is, words in different languages that share a common root. For example, English speakers can comprehend Spanish words that are derived from Latin roots (e.g., expedition—expedición). However, when the home language does not share cognates with the L2, as is the case for Mandarin, Punjabi, or Somali ELLs, they cannot rely on cognates to help them derive the meaning of unfamiliar new words in the L2, nor can teachers use cognates as a springboard for teaching new words in the L2 or for drawing attention to similar morphological derivation rules (e.g., Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Luo, 2011). Uncovering positive transfer is not always intuitive. Ramirez et al. (2011) found that Mandarin-speaking ELLs performed at the same level of accuracy in English as their EL1 peers on a task asking them to generate novel compound words. This is because, in both English and Mandarin, the same rules govern the generation of compound words (e.g., in the compound word homework, home modifies work). An example of negative transfer that brings in a developmental perspective comes from a study by Wang and Geva (2003a). Grade 1 ELLs, whose home language was Cantonese, found it difficult to distinguish the phoneme /s/ from the soft /th/ (e.g., sink vs. think) because the /th/ phoneme does not exist in Chinese, and is perceived by young Chinese ELLs as /s/. This difficulty was reflected in the kind of errors that Grade 1 ELLs with Cantonese as their L1 made when spelling words that include the /th/ phoneme, but not when spelling words that do not include novel phonemes. Moreover, by the end of Grade 2, as their English language and reading skills developed, these negative transfer errors disappeared, and the spelling profiles of the EL1s and Cantonese ELLs were identical (Wang & Geva, 2003b). The interdependence hypothesis, formulated by Cummins (1981), is a prominent theoretical framework that concerns L1–L2 transfer. Cummins (2000, p. 173) suggests that “academic language proficiency transfers across languages, such that students who have developed literacy in their [first language] will tend to make stronger progress in acquiring literacy in [the second language].” He proposes that the acquisition of relevant L1 academic oral language skills (e.g., comprehension of an academic science lecture) can foster acquisition of comparable oral skills in the L2, which can foster further L2 literacy development. Cummins maintains that an immigrant student who has developed grade-appropriate conceptual and strategic knowledge in the context of his or her L1 education may be able to use this knowledge in a similar manner in the context of L2 academic learning, provided that an adequate command of the language has been attained. It is important to remember that not all aspects of L1 development can be easily transferred to the L2; this kind of transfer depends on how demanding the task is, on language proficiency, and on the nature of the task. The interdependence hypothesis has highlighted conceptual and strategic knowledge that can transfer from the L1 to the L2. Genesee et al. (2006) have suggested that the

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

41

typological (contrastive) framework accounts for transfer in the domains of spelling, vocabulary, and word recognition, whereas correlations between L1 and L2 higher-order literacy skills (e.g., metacognitive strategy use) can be explained within Cummins’s interdependence framework. The common underlying cognitive processes framework (Geva & Ryan, 1993) underscores the role that underlying cognitive processes play in explaining correlations between parallel L1 and L2 tasks. Essentially, individual differences in common underlying basic cognitive processes such as working memory, phonological short-term memory, and phonological awareness and RAN, as well as higher-level executive function and cognitive processes such as working memory and self-regulation, explain L1–L2 correlations between similar language and literacy skills and predict word reading, spelling, and reading fluency in L1 and L2. Performance on such largely innate abilities does not require high levels of OLP and exposure, and often predicts word-reading skills cross-linguistically (Genesee et al., 2006). Therefore, assessment of these underlying cognitive factors can be highly informative when the learners have not achieved full L2 OLP. Research involving alphabetic orthographies has shown that individual differences in phonological processing account for word reading in the L1 or L2, and studies show that phonological processing correlates with word-reading cross-linguistically, not only when the two languages are typologically similar (e.g., Cisero & Royer, 1995; Durgunog˘lu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993, for English–Spanish; Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Jared, Cormier, Levy, & Wade-Woolley, 2012, for English–French), but also when the two languages involved are typologically more distant (e.g., Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Ding et al., 2013, for English–Chinese; Gholamain & Geva, 1999, for English–Farsi; Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1993, for English– Hebrew; Marinova-Todd, Zhao, & Bernhardt, 2010; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2005; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005). Koda (2008) explained that what is transferred is not merely a set of rules, but form–function relationships that L2 users have acquired in their L1 and apply in the L2. RAN is another underlying processing factor that taps basic lower-level cognitive processes by estimating the automaticity of accessing lexical units such as names of digits, letters, or colors (Bowers & Wolf, 1993). Performance on RAN letters or digits is quite similar in L1 and L2 learners of alphabetic languages and is associated with persistent decoding and reading fluency difficulties in ELLs (e.g., Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2002; Everatt, Smythe, Adams, & Ocampo, 2000; Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006; Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997) and in Chinese–English bilinguals (e.g., Ho, Chan, Tsang, & Lee, 2002; Keung & Ho, 2009). The implications for assessment of this research on language development is that the interpretation of persistent difficulties in word reading by L2 learners needs to be based on careful consideration of the languages involved. Furthermore, the errors that L2 children make need to be considered from the perspective of negative transfer, typical developmental patterns, age and extent

42

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

of exposure to the L2, poor OLP in the L2 especially in relation to CALP, and, of course, the possibility that errors reflect an underlying LD or language disorder that may be compounded by having to function academically in the L2 (Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). For this reason, whenever possible psychologists should aim to describe L2 students’ knowledge and skills in the L1 because performance in the L1 may contribute to a more complete clinical picture of what they know and can actually do in their best language (which may not be their L1). It is important to remember that performance in the L1 and L2 can correlate positively, thanks to the transfer of higher-level strategic and language skills, but also thanks to cognitive processes such as phonological processes, RAN, or working memory that underlie the ability to read with accuracy and fluency in the L1 and the L2.

Contextual, Sociocultural, Home, and Family Factors In addition to factors residing in the child or adolescent, it is essential to acknowledge the range of complex policy and contextual factors that influence L2 language and literacy development and L1 maintenance, and that are relevant to the interpretation of reading achievement in L2 learners (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2009; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Schwartz, 2008). As shown in Figure 3.1, and consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s (2005b) bioecological model, it is important to consider broader policy, home and school factors such as parental education, values and aspirations, school and neighborhood demographic characteristics, and a range of policies regarding factors such as teacher training, access to mental health resources, regulations and legislation, funding, awareness raising, communication and dissemination, capacity building, and curricula (OECD, 2009; Willms, 2003). A broad body of research has documented the important role that home experiences play in the development of language and literacy skills (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995; Heath, 1983; Neuman & Dickinson, 2003; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). For example, research has shown that the extent to which children can recognize rhymes before they go to school and before they have learned to read predicts subsequent phonological awareness, which in turn predicts the development of decoding skills (Maclean, Bryant, & Bradley, 1987). Likewise, children’s familiarity with various book titles is associated with subsequent reading achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). Literacy development begins long before children begin formal schooling and formal literacy instruction (Heath, 1983; Leseman & de Jong, 1998; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998), and the frequency and quality of children’s exposure to relevant home literacy activities enhances the development of literacy skills (Snow et al., 1998). Snow and colleagues underscored the importance of having positive expectations and experiences with literacy from an early age, as these factors predict success in reading later on. It is important

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

43

to remember that the pattern is similar for L2 learners. Activities that promote knowledge about print, language, and other literacy-related activities are important for subsequent literacy achievement whether they take place in the home language or the school language (Cummins, 2012; Paradis et al., 2011; Schwartz, Leikin, & Share, 2005). Educated immigrants who engage in literacy-relevant activities at home may be doing this in their best language, which may be the L1. What matters is not so much whether the L1 or L2 are used at home, but the engagement in such activities, the use of rich language and literacy activities, and the existence of values and habits that promote engagement with literacy. As discussed in Chapter 2, in some OECD countries such as Canada and Australia, immigrant parents may be more educated than nonimmigrants (Antecol, Cobb-Clark, & Trejo, 2003; OECD, 2010b; Statistics Canada, 2003). Therefore, it is important to avoid generalizations when thinking of the poor academic achievement of children of immigrants or other culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners. It is also important to remember that groups of ethnic–linguistic minorities may have different immigration stories, and generations of immigrants from the same geographic region may differ in the extent to which they experienced trauma and have had access to educational and organizational resources necessary to support language and literacy development in the L1 or L2. How much the families of L2 learners value and engage in literacy development in the home language and in the language of the school depends on various sociocultural factors, such as group cohesiveness, cultural identity, and policies related to the education of immigrant and other language minority groups (Durgunog˘lu & Verhoeven, 1998; OECD, 2009). Attitudinal differences in how important it is for the family to maintain or develop their children’s skills in the L1 and L2, along with cultural capital, influence parental decisions about how much to invest in maintaining or developing the L1 and L2 (Spolsky, 2004). Thus, the research on the range of home factors promoting literacy and other academic skills has implications for the questions that psychologists ask when taking a developmental history. These considerations are discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 7. Another factor to consider is the homogeneity–diversity of ethnic and linguistic groups in the classroom and the opportunities children have for learning the L2. In some schools, a diverse range of home languages are represented (including native speakers of the societal language). Consequently, the common language of the classroom and the playground will often be the societal language. Other classrooms may be more linguistically and ethnically homogenous, in that they mainly comprise children who emigrated from the same country and share the same language. The range of parental education may be more varied in multilingual classrooms but may be more homogeneous in other sites. This homogeneity is common in remote aboriginal communities in Canada, Latino communities in certain areas of the United States, and some suburbs of

44

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

European countries such as France and the Netherlands. This means that some of the research conducted in the United States on bilingual English–Spanish classrooms on ways of transitioning from the home language to the societal language, while informative, may not be directly applicable to more diverse linguistic contexts. Depending on age of arrival in the host country, L2 students may not have well-developed language and literacy skills in their L1, and indeed their command of the L1 may sometimes be extremely limited (e.g., Jean & Geva, 2012). In some jurisdictions, L2 students may attend heritage language classes designed to maintain contact with the L1 and culture. However, there is variability in the quality, focus, cost, and intensity of heritage programs. There is also a lot of variability in the extent to which immigrant children and youth have access to other community-based services designed to maintain cultural and linguistic affinity with the L1. As a result, L2 students may not necessarily be able to benefit from their parents’ L1 skills, especially if they immigrated when they were young, or if their education was disrupted. As previously discussed, in the case of L2 students who immigrated when they were older, one would expect that higher-level literacy skills acquired at school in their home country could be transferred to the L2, provided they had attended school previously on a regular basis and have opportunities to develop their L1 and L2 language skills (Cummins, 2012). As discussed in more depth in Chapter 2, OECD countries vary in the educational level of their immigrants (OECD, 2010b). Immigrants to Canada and Australia are more likely to have higher levels of English fluency, educational attainment, and income than the general population in these countries (Antecol et al., 2003). This relative advantage is not applicable to other OECD countries. In studies that involved low SES samples, or where only the L1 was used at home, the differences in reading comprehension scores between L2 learners and their L1 peers were the largest, but when SES was higher or when the L2 was also used at home, the differences were not so pronounced (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014). Demographic factors such as age of arrival in the host country are usually inversely related to proficiency in the societal language (Garnett, 2010), and parental education is positively related to language and literacy achievement. Other factors such as extent of exposure to the L1 and L2 in the home, school, and community, and whether schooling was disrupted, are important factors to consider. Contextual and demographic factors do not cause LD, though they may exacerbate the struggle to develop adequate L2 language and literacy skills in the face of an underlying disability. Therefore, it may be possible to conjecture that in OECD countries such as Canada and Australia it may be easier to distinguish between L2 learners who have an LD and those who are typically developing L2 learners. In some other OECD countries, where children of immigrants typically perform much more poorly than the general population, it may

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

45

be harder to tease apart the double or triple “whammies” of being an L2 learner, being poor, and having an LD.

TYPICAL AND ATYPICAL LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN L2 LEARNERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT Although there are commonalities in the development of OLP, reading, and written expression in L1 and L2 learners, they also differ in specific ways. To the extent that research is available, the cognitive predictors of these literacy skills in L1 and L2 learners are addressed. When research is available, we also explicate the factors that differentiate L2 children with and without LD. Implications for assessment are discussed. Figure 3.1 shows that the skills that are associated with reading comprehension are hierarchical, in terms of both their complexity and developmental sequence. Both word-level reading and OLP are necessary components of textlevel reading (text-reading fluency and reading comprehension). Furthermore, reading comprehension is a complex process and individual differences on other aspects such as executive function, strategic knowledge, reading fluency, and the existence and activation of background knowledge also play a significant role in enhancing or hindering reading comprehension in L1 learners (Cain et al., 2004; Joshi & Aaron, 2000) and L2 learners (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014; van Gelderen, Schoonen, de Glopper, & Hulstijn, 2007). We begin this section with a description of the development of OLP in L2 learners, and then move on to research on their word-level reading skills, textreading fluency, and reading comprehension. Although, as will be described in the following text, researchers have delineated the subskills necessary for competent written expression such as OLP, handwriting, spelling, and metacognitive strategies, with the exception of spelling, the research on writing in L2 children and adolescents is scant and there is not enough research on the various components of written expression to be able to develop a parallel model to that shown in Figure 3.1 for reading comprehension. Consequently, our discussion of written expression in this chapter is brief, and concludes with a plea for further research.

Development of OLP in L2 Researchers have investigated the development of components of OLP such as phonology, morphology, vocabulary, syntax, and listening comprehension in L2 children coming from various language typologies and with different amounts and quality of exposure to the L2 (and the L1). Each of these components of language begins to develop before the onset of formal schooling, and contributes to the acquisition of reading and writing skills. As children

46

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

become better readers and writers, their language skills develop further, and these, in turn, contribute further to their reading skills. In other words, the relationship between language and literacy skills is reciprocal (Stanovich, 1986). At the lower end of the spectrum are students who experience difficulty in understanding the alphabetic principle and in acquiring reading. Their reading is laborious; due to their problems with decoding and fluency, they rely excessively on context, and over time they become less motivated to engage in reading. The gap between their reading and language skills and those of more successful readers increases over time. Stanovich referred to this gradually increasing gap as the “Matthew Effects” whereby “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Stanovich described the Matthew Effects in relation to L1 learners, but this description is also highly relevant to L2 learners (KahnHorwitz, Shimron, & Sparks, 2006). When children begin to learn to read in their L1, they have oral language skills that are usually commensurate with their age, and these skills enable them to comprehend without significant difficulty the language used in the classroom and in the texts they learn to read. When children are being taught to read in their L2, however, their oral language skills are less well developed, and they often acquire proficiency in spoken and written L2 skills simultaneously (Chall, 1996). Schooling, including exposure to the L2 and the development of L2 literacy skills, is associated with further development of OLP. Over several years, children acquire a larger academic vocabulary and refine their ability to comprehend metaphor and process subtleties in the pragmatic aspects of language (e.g., understand teasing). They also develop their morphological and grammatical skills, and gradually become able to integrate more complex language skills into reading, writing, and oral communication activities. Developmental studies show that even if they begin to attend school in the societal language from the primary grades, L2 learners do not achieve the same level of OLP as their L1 peers on various components of English, including vocabulary, syntactic knowledge, morphological skills, and listening comprehension (e.g., Farnia & Geva, 2011; Lam, Chen, Geva, Luo, & Li, 2012; Lesaux, Rupp, & Siegel, 2007; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014; Roessingh & Elgie, 2009). Typically, developing L2 learners who appear to be fluent in the societal language are nevertheless challenged by subtle and more advanced, academic aspects of language (CALP). For example, in one study that traced the vocabulary development of ELLs from Grade 1 to 6, their skills continued to improve consistently from Grade 1 to 6, but their vocabulary significantly lagged behind their EL1 peers (Farnia & Geva, 2011). L2 learners also have difficulty understanding culture-specific metaphors such as “kick the bucket,” “don’t open a can of worms,” or “turn a blind eye.” Difficulties with such language components might compromise the performance of even highly advanced L2 learners on the Verbal Comprehension Index of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003), on analogies tasks, or on

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

47

their ability to understand jokes and engage in teenage banter, teasing, and other aspects of complex language (Hand, 1998). The challenges encountered by L2 learners in developing OLP in the societal language may be more acute for students who immigrate in middle school or later. Pasquarella et al. (2012) examined the receptive vocabulary skills of ELL students in Grades 9 and 10, who had attended school in their country of origin and arrived in Canada around the age of 13. Although their language and reading comprehension skills were equivalent to their English vocabulary, their OLP was similar to EL1 students in Grade 3 or 4. Against the backdrop of generally lower academic vocabulary and reading comprehension skills among L2 learners, it is important to recognize the fact that some L2 students have persistent reading-related or language difficulties that do not merely reflect their L2 status, and are indicative of a language disorder or reading disability (Geva & Herbert, 2012; Geva & Massey-Garrison, 2013; Paradis et al., 2011; Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2009). The psychologist’s challenge is to tease apart difficulties that reflect the normal developmental course of becoming increasingly fluent in the L2 from difficulties that may reflect, in addition, underlying persistent difficulties associated with having language impairment or another LD.

L2 Word-Level Reading Skills In general, over the early elementary years, L2 children who receive adequate exposure and instruction to language and literacy in the L2 can achieve word-reading skills that are within the average range (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Developmental trajectories associated with accuracy in word and pseudoword reading over time do not differ for EL1 and ELL students who have been exposed to adequate instruction in the L2 since the primary grades (Lesaux & Geva, 2006). This conclusion is based on studies involving ELLs with various homelanguage backgrounds such as Punjabi (Chiappe & Siegel, 1999); Urdu (Mumtaz & Humphreys, 2002); Italian (D’Angiulli, Siegel, & Maggi, 2004); Portuguese (da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995); Spanish (Durgunog˘ lu et al., 1993; Gottardo, Javier, Mak, Farnia, & Geva, in press; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003); Chinese (Luo, Chen, & Geva, in press); and Farsi (Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001). Languages differ in the transparency of their writing systems, and therefore the ease with which word-level skills develop can vary among languages (Caravolas, Lervåg, Defior, Seidlová Málková, & Hulme, 2013; Geva & Wang, 2001; Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Share, 2008). Thus, it takes longer to develop decoding skills in English, due to the deep or less consistent nature of the rules that govern phoneme–grapheme correspondence, than in consistent, or transparent, orthographies such as Spanish, Farsi, or Czech (Caravolas et al., 2013). For example, Geva and Siegel (2000) have shown that middle class emerging bilinguals who attended an English–Hebrew day school actually developed accurate

48

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

decoding skills more easily in (voweled) Hebrew, their L2, than they did in their L1 (English), even though their OLP in Hebrew was minimal. Some researchers argue that decoding accuracy is a “non-issue” for most of the world’s (alphabetic) orthographies, and that performance on accuracy measures of word reading often reaches a ceiling by the end of Grade 1 or 2 (Caravolas et al., 2013; Seymour et al., 2003; Share, 2008). What may matter, therefore, as L2 learners are developing their reading skills in transparent orthographies, is not so much word-reading accuracy but word-reading fluency, which becomes the factor that distinguishes typically developing readers from those with learning disabilities. This increased role for word-reading fluency has been shown in research involving a variety of transparent alphabetic languages, including Hebrew, Italian, German, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, and Greek (Breznitz, 1997; Cossu, 1999; de Jong & van der Leij, 2003; Lyytinen, Aro, & Holopainen, 2004; Nikolopoulos, Goulandris, Hulme, & Snowling, 2006; Yap & van der Leij, 1993). Furthermore, L2 learners who are better decoders in their L1 will be relatively better decoders in their L2 (e.g., da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunog˘ lu et al., 1993; Genesee et al., 2006; Geva & Clifton, 1994; Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Ho et al., 2002), though the L1–L2 correlations tend to be higher when the two languages are typologically more similar to each other. These findings have important implications for psychologists because it would be uncommon to find children who have excellent word-level reading skills in one language concomitant with persistent delays in word-level reading skills in the other language. Limbos and Geva (2001) found that, in spite of the rather conclusive evidence that children who begin to learn their L2 in the primary grades do not differ from their L1 counterparts in word-level reading skills, and that the persistent word-level reading problems that some of these L2 learners have are likely associated with an LD, primary level teachers interpreted persistent difficulties in word reading in ELLs as reflecting children’s underdeveloped English OLP and were less likely to consider the possibility that their problems may be related to a possible LD. These teachers were accurate in identifying EL1 students as being at risk for having a reading disability, but underidentified ELL students with similar profiles. Such attributions mean that teachers may not refer these students to psychologists, special education teachers, or reading specialists even when the children might benefit from this support. There is much less research on the development of word-level reading skills of immigrant and refugee students who arrive in the host country as older children and adolescents, or who have had interrupted schooling and therefore did not have an opportunity to develop their L1 literacy skills. The conclusion that L2 learners can learn to read words with as much accuracy and fluency as their L1 peers may not apply to L2 learners who begin to learn to read and communicate in the L2 as adolescents (Garnett, 2010; Lin et al., 2012; Pasquarella et al., 2012). These adolescent L2 learners tend to perform more poorly than their L1 peers, not only on OLP measures but also on reading measures, and in general

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

49

their achievement is lower than that of their L1 peers. Pasquarella et al. (2012) compared the performance of ELL students in Grades 9 and 10 who had prior experience learning to read in their home country with EL1 students. As previously discussed, these ELLs had arrived in Canada on average 2 years previously, around the age of 13, and were attending ELL classes. Their standard scores on real-word and pseudoword identification were significantly below those of the EL1 comparison students and the normative mean. Clearly more research is needed to examine the typical trajectory of individuals who immigrate in later childhood or adolescence. Deficits in the representation, retrieval, or analysis of phonological information, as well as deficits in working memory, are associated with persistent problems in the acquisition of word identification and word decoding skills of children learning to read in various languages (Caravolas et al., 2013). This conclusion is generally applicable to L2 learners (August & Shanahan, 2006) including those learning to speak English (Chiappe & Siegel, 1999; Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000) and Swedish (Guron & Lundberg, 2003). Importantly, it is possible to predict word-reading skills in one language from phonological awareness performance in the other. This conclusion was reached in studies involving children learning to read concurrently in English–French (e.g., Comeau et al., 1999; Jared et al., 2012); English–Spanish (Durgunog˘lu et al., 1993); English–Farsi (Gholamain & Geva, 1999); English–Hebrew (Geva & Siegel, 2000; Geva et al., 1993); and English–Arabic (Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2008). The results of this body of research are especially relevant for psychologists, as the belief that OLP drives the development of word recognition skills in L2 is pervasive (Geva, 2000). These studies indicate that it is possible to reliably measure underlying cognitive processing skills in the L2 or L1, and that individual differences in skills such as phonological awareness and RAN, measured in the L1 or the L2, can predict accurate word recognition and pseudoword decoding cross-linguistically. The overall conclusion from the research is that, with appropriate instruction, typically developing L2 learners who are exposed to the L2 in the primary grades can develop accurate word-level skills in the L2, and that accurate wordlevel reading skills are not heavily dependent on L2 OLP. The clinical implications are obvious: Persistent difficulties in developing decoding skills of students who begin studying in their L2 in the primary grades cannot be attributed simply to poor OLP in the target language. Furthermore, performance should be compared to that of children from similar backgrounds. This knowledge should be used to identify and provide appropriate intervention to L2 learners who experience persistent difficulties in acquiring word-level reading skills. Indeed the available research (e.g., Cirino et al., 2009; Lovett et al., 2008; Wise & Chen, 2010) suggests that research-based approaches to intervention that work for L1 learners also work for L2 learners with a reading disability. Additional research is needed, however, to establish guidelines for clinicians to use in assessing

50

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

word-level reading skills of students who immigrated in the upper elementary grades and beyond, and for those who have had interrupted schooling.

L2 Text-Reading Fluency Reading fluency involves proficient word recognition, as well as “the ability to group words appropriately into meaningful grammatical units for interpretation” (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000, pp. 3–6). Relatedly, Meyer and Felton (1999) defined reading fluency as “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading such as decoding” (p. 284). Reading fluency is typically assessed on the basis of a combination of accuracy and speed. Clinically, the ability to use prosody or intonation patterns is highly informative; the appropriate use of prosody when reading aloud reflects the ability of the reader to decode with fluency and to chunk linguistic information into meaningful phrases. Achieving reading fluency is important as a means of freeing up cognitive resources and enabling reading comprehension. Dysfluent reading can be the result of impairment in any of the component processes of reading (Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Meyer & Felton, 1999). Researchers prefer a dynamic, developmental approach to studying reading fluency and its relationship with reading comprehension (e.g., Berninger et al., 2010; Collins & Levy, 2008; Kame’enui, Simmons, Good, & Harn, 2000; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Some researchers have emphasized the important role that efficient processing of meaning plays in reading fluency (Carver, 1997; Perfetti, 1985; Schreiber, 1980; for a review see the NRP, 2000, and a special issue of Scientific Studies of Reading edited by Kame’enui and Simmons, in 2001). There is general agreement in the research literature that fluent reading requires simultaneous attention to accurate and effortless decoding and to language comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Samuels, 2002). Recently, more information has become available on the development of reading fluency in L2 children and the role of reading fluency in reading comprehension. Of relevance to understanding the importance of reading fluency for L2 reading comprehension is the notion that the nature of the construct of reading fluency changes with development (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Specifically for L1 children, reading fluency in the early stages of learning to read primarily involves accurate and automatic execution of word-level reading skills. The idea is that when word decoding becomes effortless and fast, readers can allocate more attentional resources to higher-level reading skills, including text-reading fluency and text comprehension. The distinction between word-reading fluency and text-reading fluency is important because beyond early reading acquisition, text-reading fluency plays a more salient role in reading comprehension. This is most likely the case because text-reading fluency is a more complex task that involves word-level fluency, as well as the understanding of the language of text

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

51

(Cutting, Materek, Cole, Levine, & Mahone, 2009; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). The distinction between word-level and text-level reading fluency is of course also highly relevant to L2 children since OLP is more important for reading text fluently than for reading isolated words fluently (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Geva & Farnia, 2012; Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006; Lesaux & Russ, 2011; Nakamoto et al., 2007; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). To illustrate, despite poorer English OLP, ELLs in Grade 2 were able to read single words as fluently as their EL1 peers. However, the EL1 children had an advantage in textreading fluency over the ELLs thanks to their better-developed OLP and ability to access meaning more easily (Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006). Because the ELLs were less proficient in English, they were less able to benefit from “top down” language facilitation, which is so important for text-reading fluency. One clinical implication of these findings is that, on timed reading comprehension tasks, L2 learners can be at a disadvantage because they are less fluent readers, so the scoring of timed reading comprehension tests should be interpreted with caution. It is important to ask to what end one would assess reading fluency or reading comprehension, how might this assessment impact decisions concerning a possible diagnosis of a LD, and what skills are targeted for instruction and remediation.

L2 Reading Comprehension As shown in Figure 3.1, reading comprehension is complex and multidimensional, is affected by numerous factors, and changes over time. Typically in the lower grades the focus is on learning to read; that is, on acquiring decoding skills and fluency in word-level reading, and developing spelling skills, which, as discussed earlier, are less dependent on language proficiency, at least when the L2 reading skills are introduced early. In later years, the focus shifts to reading to learn (Chall, 1996). By about Grade 4, students begin to develop the skills that help them to read in order to acquire new information and concepts, and one of the byproducts of reading is exposure to new vocabulary and complex linguistic structures. This change in focus increases the challenges faced by L2 learners, whose OLP is still developing and who may not have sufficient culturally relevant background knowledge to comprehend text. Most studies that compare the reading comprehension skills of L1 and L2 learners indicate that L2 learners typically perform more poorly on reading comprehension tasks than do their L1 counterparts (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Beech & Keys, 1997; Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; Geva & Farnia, 2012; Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith, & Connors, 2003; Nakamoto et al., 2007; Pasquarella et al., 2012; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). Consistent with an augmented SVR framework, and as has been documented amply with regard to L1 children (e.g., Joshi & Aaron, 2000; Parrila et al., 2004; for a systematic review see

52

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

NRP, 2000), word-level reading skills, factors contributing to word-level skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, RAN), reading fluency, and various aspects of OLP (e.g., vocabulary, grammatical, and morphological knowledge) play a significant role in explaining individual differences in the reading comprehension of L2 learners (e.g., Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Geva & Farnia, 2012; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Lesaux & Russ, 2011; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2008, 2012). Students with limited or incomplete command of the L2 are less able to utilize the skills and metacognitive strategies that they may have developed in the context of learning to read in their L1 when reading in the L2 (Sparks et al., 2009). The available research on ELLs points to the significant and distinct role that both word- and text-reading fluency play in reading comprehension. To illustrate, in a study based on Grade 5 Spanish-speaking ELLs, Crosson and Lesaux (2010) reported that in addition to the contribution of word-level reading skills and language skills, text-reading fluency in this grade was a unique predictor of reading comprehension. Additional relevant information about reading fluency and its role in reading comprehension comes from two recent longitudinal studies of ELLs (Farnia & Geva, 2011; Yaghoub-Zadeh, Farnia, & Geva, 2012). In general, these studies show that, past the primary grades, reading fluency of ELLs who have begun to develop their English language skills in Grade 1 is related to their word-reading skills, as well as to cognitive factors that underlie wordlevel reading skills, and to OLP. Furthermore, individual differences in reading comprehension of ELLs in Grades 5 and 6 were related to a combination of factors, including underlying cognitive processing factors (phonological awareness, naming speed), reading fluency, and OLP (both vocabulary and syntactic skills). In other words, relative difficulties with these factors in comparison to other typically developing L2 learners coming from similar backgrounds should be viewed as reliable warning signs of difficulties in achieving text-reading fluency, and ultimately, reading comprehension. The take-home message is that just as with their L1 peers, L2 learners’ difficulties in reading comprehension might reflect underdeveloped language skills, insufficient background knowledge, and underdeveloped meaning-making strategies, but they may also be tied to deficits in underlying cognitive skills such as RAN and working memory, which result in laborious and dysfluent reading that impacts reading comprehension. Another important finding to note is that predictors of reading comprehension change over time in both L1 and L2 elementary school children. For example, longitudinal studies of L1 children have shown that in the primary grades, word-level reading skills substantially predict reading comprehension. However, as discussed earlier, in subsequent years, as word-level reading skills become established and fluent, OLP becomes a stronger and more reliable predictor of reading comprehension. This general observation has received support in studies that tracked L2 learners from the primary grades into upper elementary school (Geva & Farnia, 2012; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). There are fewer studies examining reading comprehension with adolescent L2 learners.

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

53

One informative study mentioned earlier (Pasquarella et al., 2012) has shown that among adolescent L2 learners who immigrated to Canada toward the end of elementary school, individual differences in word-reading skills continue to play a substantial role in explaining individual differences in reading comprehension, over and above the significant role of OLP. Several aspects of OLP are associated with distinct patterns of reading comprehension in subgroups of EL1 and ELL children. Geva and Massey-Garrison (2013) identified these factors by comparing ELL and EL1 children in Grade 5 who were typical readers, poor decoders, and poor comprehenders relative to their language group. Irrespective of whether the children were EL1 or ELLs, typical readers performed better than poor decoders and comprehenders on vocabulary, listening comprehension, and syntactic tasks, and EL1s outperformed ELLs on receptive vocabulary. Poor decoders obtained lower scores than poor comprehenders on phonological processing tasks, and poor comprehenders had more challenges with listening comprehension and syntax than poor decoders, irrespective of second-language status. The listening comprehension difficulties of EL1 and L2 students identified as poor comprehenders were especially evident with regard to their ability to draw inferences when reading or listening to information. There is ample research on the role of background knowledge in the educational achievement of children studying in their L2 (for a review see August & Shanahan, 2006). We mention here only one study that illustrates how important it is to consider relevant background knowledge when examining reading comprehension. Low and Siegel (2005) examined the reading comprehension of Grade 6 ELLs who had initially received high-quality literacy instruction during their primary years of schooling. The ELLs scored below EL1 students on a standardized test of reading comprehension, but they did not differ from their EL1 peers on an experimental reading comprehension test that did not rely as heavily on vocabulary and on background knowledge. Although the reading comprehension of L2 learners has been the subject of numerous studies, conclusions about identifying underlying reading comprehension problems in L2 learners may be more precarious because this area has not been studied to the same extent as decoding problems. This is because children who study in their L2 typically have more challenges with language comprehension and with reading comprehension than their L1 counterparts. Nevertheless, it is important for psychologists to assess reading comprehension and its underlying predictors because identifying these problems in L2 learners may provide specific directions for intervention and instruction.

L2 Spelling Skills Similar to the acquisition of word-level reading skills, the development of spelling skills for L2 learners who begin school in the primary grades can be at a level

54

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

commensurate with their L1 peers. Vocabulary knowledge does not play a major role in the development of accurate spelling skills of these young L2 learners (Geva, 2006; Geva et al., 1993; Kahn-Horwitz, Schwartz, & Share, 2011; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Wang & Geva, 2003a). Negative transfer related to typological differences between the L1 and L2, however, plays a role in the spelling of specific phonemes among L2 learners (e.g., Kahn-Horwitz et al., 2011; Wang & Geva, 2003b). This negative transfer can be understood by considering the interplay between novel orthographic characteristics and novel features in the spoken language (Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Kahn-Horwitz et al., 2011; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000). The effects of negative transfer do not persist in typically developing L2 learners, but they often do in L2 learners with LD. As is the case with word-level reading, phonological awareness and RAN predict spelling skills of EL1 (Stratman & Hodson, 2005; Uhry, 2002) and L2 learners (e.g., Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Geva & LaFrance, 2010; Stuart, 1999). These studies illustrate that L2 learners who begin schooling in their L2 in the primary grades can acquire spelling skills at the same rate as their L1 peers, and that the same cognitive predictors explain individual differences in learning to spell among L2 learners. At the same time, from a developmental perspective, it is important to be mindful of the specific effects of negative transfer and the effects of typological differences among languages. Due to the absence of research, it is not clear whether the same pattern is true for students who immigrate as older children and adolescents. It is possible, for example, that oral vocabulary and morphosyntactic skills play a bigger role in spelling achievement using high-school academic materials.

L2 Written Expression Like reading, writing requires the coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic systems (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes, 2009; MacArthur, Philippakos, Graham, & Harris, 2012; McCutchen, 2006; Torrance & Galbraith, 2006). Educational research conducted in the 1980s underscored metacognitive skills such as the translation of ideas into written text, planning, self-monitoring, organization, and reviewing (Hayes & Flower, 1980). More recently, researchers have begun to address developmental processes in children’s writing and the role that lower-level skills play in enabling or hindering the quality of writing. Subskills that are necessary for writing include knowledge of language-specific skills such as the alphabetic principle (i.e., linking letters to phonemes); knowledge of appropriate letter formation; ability to segment words for spelling; and learning how to spell correctly using phonetic, orthographic, and morphosyntactic cues; as well as punctuation, capitalization, and handwriting (Berninger et al., 2010; Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schaefer, 1998; Hayes, 1996; Ravid, 2001). Recent research has shown that mastery and coordination of lower-level transcription skills

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

55

and language skills, including vocabulary and syntactic structures, are essential for producing high-quality writing (Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997; McCutchen, 2006). Furthermore, background knowledge influences students’ writing (Cummins, 2012). In addition to background knowledge of the topic, students require writing-specific knowledge about genres, literary techniques, and command of figures of speech (Graham & Harris, 2005). There are other issues that need to be considered in relation to writing. Written products include narratives (i.e., story writing), expository text such as essays, and other genres such as poetry and dialogue. Findings from research investigating narrative text, for example, might not be the same as with expository text. As with reading comprehension, developmental issues are important. Lower-level skills such as handwriting and spelling may have more impact on the quality of written expression in beginning writers (i.e., students in the primary grades), whereas higher-level skills such as vocabulary, background knowledge, and the ability to analyze, synthesize, and organize information may have more impact on the quality of written expression in older students. Although there is considerable literature on teaching ELL students writing skills (e.g., Panofsky et al., 2005), the recommended strategies are not based on research on L2 written expression, and so preclude the drawing of conclusions regarding these issues. Proficient writing skills require the orchestration of a variety of skills, including good spelling skills, command of academic language, and use of cohesive devices, such as anaphora, relativization, temporal reference, and conjunctions, that are essential for expressing complex ideas. It also involves metacognitive skills such as audience awareness, as well as familiarity with and opportunities to practice writing different text genres. Although there is considerable literature on teaching adolescent and adult L2 students writing skills (e.g., Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008; Panofsky et al., 2005; Schoonen, van Gelderen, Stoel, Hulstijn, & de Glopper, 2011), there is very little developmental research on the writing skills of younger typically developing L2 children and those with various reading problems (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cragg & Nation, 2006). Ndlovu (2010) examined the development of story writing in ELL students from Grades 4 to 6. Students were classified on the basis of their Grade 4 performance into one of three groups: (a) typical readers (who scored at or above the 40th percentile on decoding and comprehension tasks in comparison to others with their language status—EL1 students compared with EL1s; ELLs compared with ELLs), (b) poor decoders (who scored below the 30th percentile on decoding tasks in comparison to others with their language status), or (c) poor comprehenders (whose decoding skills were at or above the 40th percentile but whose comprehension skills were below the 30th percentile compared with others with their language status). Although ELL students in general did not achieve native-like English proficiency on measures of vocabulary and reading comprehension, they did not differ from their EL1 peers on story-writing

56

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

quality. In fact, typical ELL readers attained age-appropriate story-writing levels. However, students who were poor decoders or poor comprehenders produced stories that were of poorer quality. The cognitive profiles of the ELL and EL1 students who were poor decoders were similar in terms of their cognitive strengths and weaknesses. They displayed pervasive difficulties in phonological awareness, RAN, and spelling. Likewise, the profiles of the ELL and EL1 students who were classified as poor comprehenders were similar: They had weaknesses in nonverbal reasoning, receptive vocabulary, and listening comprehension. In general, the ELL and EL1 students who were poor decoders or poor comprehenders experienced significant difficulties in writing stories, and struggled with the mechanics of writing, sentence structure, and overall story organization and quality. This was not the case for ELL and ELl students who did not have reading difficulties. This research suggests once again that when L2 learners have difficulties in writing in comparison to their typically developing peers, attributions to L2 status or other likely factors such as cultural differences, background knowledge, or SES may be well-intentioned and valid. However, this practice may overlook additional underlying intra-individual learning difficulties stemming from underlying processing difficulties. Future research will be required to explore further the nature of writing expository texts, as well as developmental factors in the writing of L2 students with LD. Future research will be required to understand the nature of writing expository texts, as well as developmental factors in the writing of L2 students with LD.

CONCLUSION Language and literacy are complex constructs that take a long time to develop. Depending on the educational and demographic context, L2 learners can take advantage of the skills they may have had the opportunity to develop in their L1. However, as shown in Figure 3.1, it is important to remember that, as they learn to speak, read, and write in their L2, individual differences in cognitive processing and the ability to develop language, home factors related to SES, factors and beliefs related to schooling, opportunities to learn, background knowledge, and typological factors interact and affect the development of reading and language in L2. As discussed in more detail elsewhere in this book (Chapters 4 and 7), it is also important to be cognizant of cultural differences and differences in attributions that may affect the framework people use for understanding and interpreting learning difficulties. On the basis of research conducted in the last two decades, we have learned that certain aspects of learning to read may develop in some L2 learners in a sluggish manner regardless of language proficiency, just the way they do in L1 learners. There is invaluable research on skill areas where one often finds that

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

57

L1 students outperform L2 students, areas where L2 learners may outperform L1 students, and areas where there are no group differences. This research has also provided important insights relevant to the assessment and diagnosis of learning problems in L2 learners. The best science available should be used to recognize and understand the source of persistent difficulties of some L2 learners, identify their learning needs, and provide timely and effective interventions. Table 3.1 provides in point form key findings that are relevant to psychologists. Two research-based arguments are made in this chapter with regard to the conditions for valid assessment and diagnosis of L2 learners as having an LD. The first is that not all the components of reading and of the cognitive processes that underlie reading components are strongly dependent on OLP. More specifically, word-level aspects of reading and the predictors of word-based processes are modularized, develop quickly, and are perhaps not as closely tied to welldeveloped OLP as previously believed. This is not the case, however, for textlevel aspects of reading and writing that are highly related to OLP. The second argument is that while, by definition, L2 children do not have the same level of OLP as their L1 peers, it is useful to consider individual differences in the development of reading and language skills within similar groups of L2 children. This combined developmental-individual differences perspective can help to reveal difficulties in developing adequate OLP and adequate literacy in L2 learners in comparison to their reference group. This approach, which acknowledges L2 status, can help to uncover learning disabilities by making comparisons with typically developing L2 learners. It is important for psychologists, educators, and mental health professionals to be aware of what we have learned from research in this area so they can apply this knowledge in providing accurate and timely assessment and intervention to L2 children and adolescents who experience persistent learning difficulties that cannot be simply attributed to their developing L2 proficiency.

NOTES 1. Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1) provides definitions of the technical terms and acronyms used in this chapter. 2. In this chapter, the generic term L2 learners is used to refer to children and adolescents who are developing their language and literacy skills in a language other than their home language.

58

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 3.1 Key Research Findings for Psychologists to Remember When Conducting Assessments of L2 Learners OLP O
Children

develop BICS relatively quickly but it takes time to develop CALP.

O
The

vocabulary of L2 learners is not equivalent to their L1 counterparts even when their everyday vocabulary is highly developed.

O
It

is important to consider exposure, opportunities to learn, and length of time in the new country.

O
It

is important to consider various language components such as vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics.

O
Some

errors or difficulty in acquiring specific language skills may reflect negative transfer from the L1 but some may reflect typical developmental patterns.

Word-Level Reading and Spelling O
L2

learners who begin school in the primary grades in an immigrant-receiving country that provides appropriate support quickly acquire word-level reading skills at the same level as their L1 counterparts.

O
Primary

grade teachers often incorrectly attribute word-level reading challenges of L2 students to them not having the opportunity to develop adequate OLP in their L2, whereas they correctly assume that L1 children who have these challenges might be at risk for a reading disability.

O
Like

their L1 peers, L2 learners who are at risk for a reading disability have persistent difficulties with word reading and spelling skills.

O
The

prevalence of L1 and L2 students identified as having specific and persistent reading difficulties associated with poor decoding is similar.

O
The

overall profiles of L1 and L2 learners who are poor decoders are similar, despite the relative advantages that L1 children have with regard to OLP components.

O
L1

and L2 learners with word-level reading problems demonstrate difficulties with phonological awareness, with rapid lexical access to digits and letters, and with short-term memory. Persistent word-level reading difficulties in L2 learners are associated with these processing deficits, rather than with L2 status.

O
Phonological

and cognitive processing skills assessed in the L1 or L2 at least partially explain L2 learners’ persistent difficulties in developing word-level reading and spelling skills.

O
There

is very little research to guide psychologists in relation to interpreting word-level reading difficulties of L2 learners who begin instruction in their L2 in Grades 4 and up. (continued )

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF L2 LEARNERS

59

Table 3.1 Key Research Findings for Psychologists to Remember When Conducting Assessments of L2 Learners (continued) Text-Level Reading Difficulties and Written Expression O
L2

learners have significant challenges with text-level reading fluency and reading comprehension in comparison to their L1 peers.

O
The

cognitive, reading, and writing profiles of poor decoders and poor comprehenders are distinct.

O
Some

L2 learners, like L1 learners, may experience challenges related to underlying difficulties in language comprehension, in addition to the challenges associated with learning another language.

O
Reading

and writing profiles are related to each other in L1 and L2 learners.

O
For

both L1 and L2 learners, well-developed and rich language skills and spelling skills are some of the essential elements for becoming good writers.

O
It

is useful to distinguish reading and writing difficulties related to decoding skills from those related to language impairment and poor comprehension.

BICS, basic interpersonal communication skills; CALP, cognitive academic language proficiency; L1, first language; L2, second language; OLP, oral language proficiency.

60

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 3.2 Fundamental Questions Psychologists Should Consider While Conducting Assessments of L2 Learners Contextual Factors O
Did

the L2 learner have sufficient opportunities to learn to speak in the L2?

O
Did

the L2 learner have sufficient opportunities to learn to read in the L2?

O
Did

the L2 learner have opportunities to develop adequate language and literacy skills in the

L1? O
How

does the performance of the L2 learner compare with other individuals coming from similar backgrounds, similar education, and exposure to the L2 (i.e., to what extent is development typical in relation to a valid reference group)?

Language and Cognitive Factors O
What

components of literacy and cognitive–linguistic processes are less dependent on command of the L2?

O
How

can we distinguish the language and literacy learning problems in L2 learners that may be related to underlying learning difficulties from problems that may be related to low levels of OLP in the L2 or lack of background knowledge?

O
What

are universal characteristics of language and literacy development and what are language-specific characteristics?

O
How

might features of the child’s L1 be related to the process of learning to speak and read in the L2?

O
How

might learning to read in the L2 differ from learning to read in the L1?

O
How

similar are the cognitive and linguistic profiles of L1 and L2 learners with various learning difficulties?

L1, first language; L2, second language.

Gaining an Understanding of the Individual and Family Context CHAPTER 4:

Myth: There is a prescribed way to get information from a family. Fact: One size doesn’t fit all—be prepared to shift. It is very important to listen respectfully.

M

ost textbooks on psychological assessment provide guidelines on how to take a developmental, educational, and family history (e.g., Sattler & Hoge, 2006). Often, educators and physicians refer culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents to psychologists with the written consent of parents. Although parents might understand the reasons superficially and comply, they may not have a full appreciation of what they have complied with and they may have different explanations for the problems from the referral source. They may not view the issue that stimulated the referral as a problem. Furthermore, psychologists must accommodate language and cultural communication barriers. Therefore, when assessing CLD children, there are issues that psychologists need to consider that are not typically included in textbook guidelines, but are critical in terms of establishing trust and obtaining valid information. There are typically two goals of initial interviews with families (e.g., Cole & Siegel, 2003; Sattler & Hoge, 2006). The first goal is to establish trust because without trust, valid information will not be obtained and the family will not be likely to implement recommendations that result from the assessment. Establishing trust involves explaining exactly what the assessment entails in terms families comprehend, and obtaining both their agreement to proceed and commitment to the process. In order to develop a trusting relationship, psychologists need to be cognizant of key issues of cultural diversity that may impact

62

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

achieving trust. Consequently, in this chapter, we begin with a discussion of these cultural diversity issues including the impact of acculturation. We then discuss specific strategies for achieving a trusting professional relationship with culturally diverse families. The second goal of working with families at the outset of a psychological assessment is to get the relevant historical information necessary to understand the child and the context the child lives in. We discuss specific issues that should be addressed in taking a developmental, educational, language, family, health, and immigration history regarding a child from a CLD background. When families do not speak the societal language it is frequently necessary to work with an interpreter in order to circumvent language barriers. The chapter therefore concludes with a discussion of issues and strategies for conducting interviews with interpreters. The methods used to understand the family context are discussed for all of the case studies in the Appendix.

INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Fung, Lo, Srivastava, and Andermann (2012, p. 166) defined culture as an “integrated pattern of human behavior that includes but is not limited to thought, communication, languages, beliefs, values, practices, customs, courtesies, rituals, manners of interacting, roles, relationships, and expected behaviors of an ethnic group or social groups whose members are uniquely identifiable by that pattern of human behavior.” Culture transcends racial, ethnic, and religious affiliations; language spoken in the home; immigrant status; or other social variables in that people from the same social group may differ in the extent to which they identify with a specific culture. As such, culture affects the way people identify symptoms, label illness, seek help, decide whether someone is normal or abnormal, set expectations for clinicians and clients, and understand morality and altered states of consciousness (Helman, 1984; Ridley, Li, & Hill, 1998). CLD families differ on several dimensions that affect the assessment process (Dana, 2005; Guerra, Hammons, & Otsuki Clutter, 2011; Schneider, 1993). Dana (2005) proposes that the concept of worldview integrates the dimensions discussed in the literature, claiming that it is a “framework for structuring reality and creating a meaningful context for life experiences that fosters survival and adaptation” (p. 35). According to Dana, the group identity (or cultural heritage) of an individual involves beliefs pertaining to mind–body relationships, values, spirituality and religion, health and illness, locus of control and responsibility, and individualism–collectivism. These beliefs influence a person’s individual identity or cultural self. The individual cultural self is an “adaptation constructed by the person’s position within a culture of origin as well as by her or his acculturation status” (p. 36) in the immigrant receiving country. The group and individual identity of the parents and children, which may differ within families, influence their perceptions of the assessment process. Thus, they may

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

63

or may not value specific services such as interviews and psychological objective and projective tests. They may perceive psychologists positively or negatively depending on their cultural, religious, ethnic, or racial identity, personality and human qualities, and multicultural competence (for an in-depth discussion of this model, see Dana, 2005, Chapter 2). In the following sections we discuss specific dimensions that are especially important in terms of psychological assessment of CLD children and adolescents.

Individualism/Collectivism Cross-cultural psychologists conceptualize cultures on a continuum with individualistic cultures on one end and collectivistic cultures on the other (e.g., Dana, 2005; Schneider, 1993). Individualistic cultures emphasize personal achievement at the expense of group goals. Many of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) immigrant receiving countries (e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, France) are closer to the individualistic end of the continuum. Families from individualistic cultures are generally comfortable with the medical model of diagnosis, and may view having a diagnosis as an instrument to obtaining services for their children. Collectivistic cultures emphasize family, work, and social group goals. Many aboriginal groups, and most immigrants from Asia and Africa, come from cultures that are more collectivistic than those in the OECD immigrantreceiving countries. Learning and mental health problems are stigmatized in the dominant culture of most immigrant-receiving countries (e.g., Hinshaw, 2005). Sometimes, parents of children with some disabilities or disorders also experience courtesy stigma (dosReis, Barksdale, Sherman, Maloney, & Charach, 2010), which is a term first used by Goffman (1963) to refer to stigma being experienced by people who are close to the stigmatized group. Courtesy stigma may impact families in their country of origin and the immigrant-receiving country. Both stigma of the individual with a disability or disorder as well as courtesy stigma, however, may be more acute for individuals from collectivistic cultures due to concerns that learning or mental health problems not only affect the educational, career, and social prospects of the person who has the difficulty, but also disgrace the entire family (Whittaker, Hardy, Lewis, & Buchan, 2005; Wynaden et al., 2005). They may feel, for example, that the marriage prospects of the siblings of their children with learning or mental health needs are diminished. As a result, they may be reluctant to have their children assessed in the school system because of concerns that others may find out about their children’s difficulties, and therefore may seek treatment in a different community from where they live. They may have heightened concerns about confidentiality, and have difficulty initially trusting professionals. Parents may not disclose their children’s difficulties to even their closest friends for fear of being judged and stigmatized.

64

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

The Changgun (Appendix Case Study 5) case study describes a mother whose concern about her son and challenges with obtaining social and emotional support are influenced by her feelings of stigma.

Mind–Body Dualism Most families who have a European background, including those of European descent living outside the European continent, believe in mind–body dualism— the separation of experiences that are associated with the mind versus the body (Dana, 2005). Standardized assessment instruments are dualistic in nature because they assume an “internalized psychological locus for personal problems” (Dana, 2005, p. 41). Consequently, individuals who ascribe to mind–body dualism in terms of their individual cultural identity would be more likely to buy in to the assessment procedures typically used by psychologists, such as standardized tests. Many indigenous peoples and some immigrants from parts of Africa and Asia do not subscribe to mind–body dualism; they believe not only in a connection among the mind, the body, and the spirit, but also that these cannot be considered separately. Their spirituality may be a protective factor that promotes resilience by providing a coping mechanism for the many stressors they experience. On the other hand, they may also attribute illness to spiritual causes such as punishment for their sins or being cursed (Dana, 2005; Whittaker et al., 2005). For example, young Somali women in the United Kingdom attributed various behaviors that would be seen as mental health problems in European societies, including emotional symptoms such as apathy and depression, and physical/ somatic symptoms such as seizures and infertility, to possession by zar, a spirit that would have to be exorcised. They may not, as a result, seek assistance from a psychologist for their children’s difficulties and instead consult people in their communities who may give them spiritual help (Whittaker et al., 2005).

High/Low Context Cultures differ in the degree to which it is acceptable to convey information directly and express emotion (Guerra et al., 2011; Schneider, 1993). In highcontext cultures information might have to be inferred from the context, whereas in low-context cultures information is stated explicitly. Individuals from some high-context cultures tend to express their ideas in narrative form or use metaphors instead of giving direct answers to questions. In some cultures the overt expression of emotion is not acceptable; as a result, psychologists who are not immersed in the culture may not detect the subtle verbal and nonverbal cues that convey the depth of feeling of these children and parents. Children and parents from other cultures may seem to have exaggerated emotions because the range of acceptability of emotional expression may differ from the culture of

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

65

the psychologist. In some cultures (e.g., among women who were refugees from Somalia) there is an expectation that, in the face of adversity, they will simply move on and cope. This ability to be resilient is seen as a sign of well-being (Whittaker et al., 2005).

Short-/Long-Term Orientation Cultures also differ in their short-term versus long-term orientation and concept of time (Brislin & Kim, 2003; Guerra et al., 2011). Cultures with a long-term orientation emphasize restraint, perseverance, achievement, and thrift. The result is that failure produces a sense of shame. Individuals with this orientation value punctuality and may be annoyed if the clinician is not on time, or does not follow through on perceived commitments. Families from cultures with a short-term orientation may emphasize immediate gratification and living for the moment; these families may be chronically late even when they are highly motivated to receive services. Psychologists, however, may attribute the chronic lateness to low motivation for assessment or treatment even though this is not the case.

Values for Academic Achievement Cultural groups vary in terms of their expectations for their children’s academic achievement and the degree to which academic achievement is valued over and above social interaction and emotional well-being (e.g., Costigan, Hua, & Su, 2010; Turcios-Cotto & Milan, 2013). In their review of research on academic achievement expectations of students from China who immigrated to the United States and Canada, Costigan et al. (2010) reported that these students tended to obtain higher grades and have better academic outcomes than immigrant students from other ethnic groups, and discussed several familial and cultural factors that influenced their high achievement. Cultural values that likely contribute to high academic achievement include discipline, working hard, and deferring gratification. Parents’ belief that helping their children succeed in school is a primary goal and that achieving in school brings honor to the family is associated with them structuring the household so that there are supports for learning and studying (e.g., specific time for homework, limiting social engagement, hiring private tutors, assigning homework when none is given at school). For example, in our work with immigrant families in Toronto we notice that in the case of lowincome immigrant Chinese families who do not speak English (the language of school instruction), school achievement is associated with identifying a person, often from the extended family, who provides direct educational assistance to the children. Although the achievement outcomes of high achievement expectations are generally positive, there are also negative consequences. These include peer alienation and high levels of stress. The model minority stereotype refers to the view in the United States and other countries that Chinese and other Asian immigrants

66

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

have superior learning abilities. This is especially damaging for low achievers coming from these cultures, including students with learning disabilities, due to the pressure for academic success that comes from parents and teachers, success that they may not be able to attain (see Changgun, Appendix Case Study 5). Although most immigrant groups value academic achievement, there is variability in the priority of this goal versus other goals, such as being supportive of family, peer social interaction, and immediate acquisition of material goods. Turcios-Cotto and Milan (2013) describe the need to provide financial support to their families and the desire to acquire material goods as influencing the postsecondary participation rates of Latino youth in the United States. Adolescents in the United States from Chinese, Mexican, and European backgrounds, who are required to provide high levels of assistance to their families including cleaning, taking on part-time work, and sibling care, have lower levels of academic achievement, irrespective of cultural affiliation (Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). Youth from some cultural groups may resist practices that are likely to enhance their achievement such as studying in the library, and may not share good grades with their peers because they perceive that academic achievement and studying are a betrayal of the values of their youth subculture (Turcios-Cotto & Milan, 2013). In the United States, this is referred to as “acting white.”

Tolerance for Ambiguity and Diversity Cultures vary considerably in their tolerance for ambiguity and diversity both in terms of the types of child behaviors that are accepted and in terms of attitudes toward gender roles, sexual orientation, sexual practices in relation to marriage, and family structure (Guerra et al., 2011; Schneider, 1993). Behaviors that might be deviant in one culture might be seen as normal in another. Many cultural groups have conservative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues, dating, and nontraditional family structures (e.g., Naidoo, 2003). Assessment of these attitudes might be important in order to understand family relationships, especially with regard to adolescents and parent–adolescent conflict. Being sensitive to the differing attitudes of family members in the context of an assessment is therefore very important.

Family Structure and Gender Roles Families vary in their composition and may include members who are not typically viewed as the nuclear family in the dominant culture of the immigrantreceiving country (e.g., Whittaker et al., 2005). Some of these extended family members (e.g., grandparents, older siblings) may play a central role in caring for the child and possibly know the child better than the parents do. This may have an impact on who comes to the interview and their role. In some cultures, even if the mother is the primary caregiver, the father is the spokesperson and

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

67

the mother might feel reluctant to state her views. Although the mother might be the primary caregiver, in some cultures it is the father’s role to interact with psychologists during the course of an assessment. He may, however, not be able to describe his child as comprehensively as can his wife. Unless the psychologist is sensitive to this issue, politely directs questions to the mother, or strives to develop enough trust that the father has sufficient confidence that his authority will not be compromised if his wife shares her views, an important perspective may be lost (Naidoo, 2003). Gender roles vary cross-culturally. For example, in Somali culture, the woman is typically the head of the household, and manages all issues in the home (Whittaker et al., 2005). In traditional Afghan culture, marriage and taking care of the home are the only role seen as valid for women; arranged marriages, often occurring in early adolescence, are not uncommon. Following immigration to the United States, Afghan women reported considerable tension when their husbands were unemployed and they worked at basic minimum wage jobs. The stress was sometimes associated with abuse. In addition, young women who had immigrated were frequently not seen as good marriage prospects because they were viewed as tainted by American culture (Lipson & Miller, 1994). Adolescent girls from some conservative cultures may experience considerable tension between their desire to behave in accordance with the norms of the immigrant-receiving country and their families’ desire for them to dress modestly, avoid interacting with boys, and have an arranged marriage (Lipson & Miller, 1994). Naidoo (2003) reported that girls who immigrate to Canada from various South Asian countries are often strongly encouraged to attend university and attain a professional position. Nevertheless, their parents are reluctant to allow their daughters to date (sons are given more freedom in this regard), and may encourage an arranged marriage. There are typically negative attitudes toward LGBT relationships in these families. Although some adolescents may comply with the requirements of their parents with respect to gender roles and marriage, others may secretly contravene their parents’ wishes, and others might be openly rebellious (e.g., Whittaker et al., 2005). The latter pattern may lead to considerable family turmoil and parental rejection of their teenage daughters. As previously indicated, culture transcends racial, ethnic, linguistic, and religious group affiliation. In the case of immigrants and refugees, the extent to which their beliefs reflect their culture of origin versus the dominant culture in the immigrant receiving country differs. The term acculturation is used to describe this phenomenon.

Acculturation Rivera (2008, p. 76) defined acculturation as “a dynamic process of change and adaptation that individuals undergo as a result of contact with members of different cultures.” Rivera indicated that acculturation influences attitudes, beliefs,

68

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

values, affect, and behaviors; as a result, it impacts functioning in society. Acculturation should be conceptualized across two dimensions—preference for maintaining the culture of the native country/ancestors, and preference for integrating into the dominant culture (Berry, 2003; Rivera, 2008). Using these two dimensions, cross-cultural psychologists typically identify four acculturation patterns: assimilation, rejection or separation, deculturation or marginalization, and biculturalism or integration (Berry, 2003). Assimilation refers to the immigrant or refugee individual identifying almost completely with the dominant culture of the immigrant-receiving country. Individuals who have assimilated typically speak the language of the immigrant-receiving country and seldom use their first language (L1) or that of their parents and grandparents, usually access the major media outlets from the immigrant-receiving country, eat the food that native-born people eat, and mostly have friends who are not from their culture of origin. Individuals who have a rejection or separation orientation typically cling to the cultural values of their ancestors, choose friends from their cultural group, speak their L1 at home and with friends, eat food from their culture, and to the extent possible access media from their culture of origin. They often work and shop in businesses owned by others from the cultural group, and live in neighborhoods mainly populated by their cultural group. Individuals who reject the dominant culture may be limited in employment prospects and in situations where they need to interact with the educational, health, or mental health systems of the immigrant-receiving country. The deculturation or marginalization pattern is especially maladaptive because marginalized individuals often do not have a developed cultural identity—they identify with neither the dominant culture nor the culture of their ethnic group. One example of this problem is the experience of many Canadian Aboriginals. As discussed by Mitchell and Maracle (2005), historical factors including oppression frequently contribute to the stripping of cultural identity. For Canadian Aboriginals, several government policies including, for a period of more than 100 years, the removal of young children to residential schools outside their communities, banning the speaking of native languages, and minimizing interaction between children and parents have contributed to this deculturation, which has been described as cultural genocide, soul wound, and native holocaust. According to Mitchell and Maracle, this cultural stripping has resulted in prevalent health and social problems including family violence and sexual abuse, child maltreatment, alcoholism, substance abuse, high suicide rates, and petty crime. These problems were not evident in the culture prior to the arrival of European settlers. Furthermore, remote communities that have managed to maintain or revive their culture have lower youth suicide rates than other communities (e.g., Kirmayer et al., 2007). Biculturalism or integration refers to integration of the values of the culture of origin with that of the dominant culture of the immigrant-receiving country. Individuals who are integrated often live in diverse communities, speak the

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

69

language of the majority (their second language [L2]) while maintaining their L1, encourage their children to attend heritage language programs, eat foods and celebrate the holidays of the immigrant-receiving country and that of their culture of origin, and access both types of media. Integration is typically adaptive in terms of achievement, employment, and health indices. As Rivera (2008) indicated, acculturation is a dynamic process—it involves change and adaptation of various members of the family, who may have different patterns. In some families, this is a sensitive issue because some members may be more acculturated than others and this may lead to conflict. Tardif and Geva (2006), for example, found that among Chinese immigrants to Canada, families where mothers were significantly less acculturated than their adolescent daughters experienced higher levels of interpersonal conflict than families where there was less acculturation disparity. Some families simply acknowledge the differences and the parents accept that their children are “more Canadian” than they are. Other families, however, experience high levels of conflict about the behavior of their children that contravenes the parents’ social norms, and this may lead to stress in the family, and occasionally to violence or abuse (see Changgun, Case Study 5, in the Appendix). If children are more competent in the dominant language of the immigrant-receiving country than parents, it may change the power dynamic in the family because the children may be required to advocate in the community. This change in the roles of family members may be another source of family conflict.

DEVELOPING TRUST At the outset of an assessment it is helpful to develop a parent–professional partnership with the implicit or explicit goal of enhancing parent capacity to access and provide support to their children (Dunst & Trivette, 2010). Establishing this partnership can be challenging with CLD families who either have no experience with psychologists and other mental health professionals, or have had negative experiences. Psychologists who start an interview with a structured set of questions or by having the family sign forms may jeopardize trust and thereby invalidate the process. In order to achieve the trust of families, psychologists should try to gain an understanding of their specific cultural context by doing some research prior to the interview, but should not assume that all families from a particular cultural group share all aspects of the culture or are acculturated into the dominant society of the immigrant-receiving country to the same degree. Nevertheless, this cultural knowledge is essential in interpreting families’ responses and avoiding cultural taboos (e.g., a female psychologist shaking hands with an orthodox Jewish man). Furthermore, it is important to be able to manage one’s own emotional responses when families share viewpoints that are uncomfortable (Geva, Barsky, & Westernoff, 2000). Acquiring the trust

70

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

of families involves developing rapport, establishing that the psychologist is a legitimate person to help them, conveying that they can trust the psychologist to respond to their needs and to maintain confidentiality, and communicating that the psychologist and family are partners in the process. With regard to development of rapport, basic counseling communication skills including attending, listening, conveying empathy, and probing (e.g., Egan, 2009) are applicable across cultures, but how they are applied and the type of response families show may differ. Unless there is a cultural taboo against doing so, psychologists should show that they are attending and listening by facing the person they are interviewing, leaning forward and having an open stance, and striving to acquire eye contact. It is especially important to listen carefully to clients, taking the time needed to allow them to process questions, and then formulate and express responses (Sterlin, Legendre, & Kada, 2000). Conveying empathy for the challenges they experience is extremely important. Probes should be gentle (e.g., asking for examples or providing some categories for response without putting words in their mouth). Psychologists should convey that they are trying to understand the parents’ or children’s perspectives on the problem and learn about the children’s and family’s strengths and adaptive behaviors. Establishing legitimacy is sometimes tricky when families are not experienced with mental health professionals, especially if they believe that emotional problems are spiritual in nature and, as a result, feel that they should consult spiritual leaders in the community. They may also have had negative experiences with mental health professionals who have not been respectful of their cultural perspective. For example, families whose only knowledge about the role of mental health professionals is in the context of child protection may suspect that the agenda for the assessment may be taking their children away, and as a result respond in a guarded manner. Families from some cultural groups want to know that they are seeing an expert, and therefore are most responsive when psychologists explicitly communicate the extent of their training and use a formal title such as Doctor. Others might be intimidated by that approach or view it as pretentious. Often CLD families attend clinics or have their children assessed in schools where they do not need to pay for the service, which in their home country might be viewed as a less than optimal service. These families may be more motivated if they find out that they are receiving a service that normally is very costly. Other families may buy in to the assessment if the reasons for the assessment strategies used are conveyed. Professional judgment is therefore required to identify the techniques that should be used to help the parents understand the legitimacy of the service provided to their children. As with all assessments, the methods used to keep information confidential and the limits of confidentiality must be explained in language that children, youth, and families can understand. As a result of trauma, oppression, or feelings of shame, some families may be very concerned about these issues. They may need to be shown where files are kept and the forms that must be signed

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

71

before information can be released (even if releasing information is not what is required). They may be especially hesitant about videotaping sessions for supervision and training purposes, and this should be respected.

ACQUIRING AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE FAMILY’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT Notwithstanding the issue of obtaining trust being paramount, psychologists still need the information about children’s families, birth, early development, health, and education that is normally acquired in taking a history. Furthermore, there are specific issues that pertain to CLD families that psychologists should inquire about, including family composition and roles, social supports, language and immigration history, acculturation of different family members, relevant norms and values, attributions for learning and behavioral difficulties, and parenting stress. Although this is best accomplished in an interview with both parents and other caregivers, in practice having all of these individuals attend simultaneously is often challenging due to parent/caregiver work schedules and problems with child care.

Social Supports Psychologists should find out to what extent the family is embedded in a supportive community because the community can be a strong source of informational, practical, social, and emotional support. The community may be based on religious or cultural affiliation, a common language, or geography. Immigrants who are part of a strong, supportive community tend to be more resilient to the challenges of immigration (Beiser, Simich, Pandalangat, Nowakowski, & Tian, 2011). Whittaker et al. (2005), for example, indicated that women who were refugees from Somalia, most of whom were mothers, typically did not turn to their spouses for social support in the household. Instead, they claimed that they were supported by other women in the community, and they turned to the Imam for counseling. They also claimed that reading the Quran daily led to inner peace. In addition to family and other members of the community from the immigrants’ country of origin, social supports might include neighbors, settlement organizations, refugee sponsors, schools, places of worship, child care centers, and agencies providing assistance to children with learning and behavior difficulties. In their classic book, Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles, and Guidelines for Practice, Dunst, Trivette, and Deal (1988) outline a series of questions that psychologists and other mental health professionals might consider when striving to identify sources of support for families of CLD children. The questions listed in Table 4.1 are based on Dunst et al.’s formulation, but adapted and reworded to be more accessible for families who do not speak their L2

72

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

fluently, who do not have high levels of education, and who are dealing with the stresses of adapting to a different culture. Although this interview may not be needed for all families, for some it may be valuable in terms of identifying the supports and resources they have, the supports and resources they need, and the supports and resources that they would find acceptable or helpful. If psychologists refer families to resources that they view as stigmatizing, impractical (e.g., challenging to travel there or open only at times they work), or contrary to their cultural beliefs, they are unlikely to follow through (e.g., Waschbusch et al., 2011).

Language and Immigration History The family’s language (e.g., what languages are spoken in the home, when the child was first exposed to the L2, use of a local language) and immigration history can be very informative. As discussed in Chapter 3, the degree to which families speak the L1 and the L2 is only one part of the context that can inform assessment. Some refugees are led to believe that they should claim that they use the L2 at home, when in fact they do not. In addition, the quality of the language spoken and the degree to which the family engages in language games and literacy activities are associated with academic achievement. The following questions may be helpful to ask parents in order to gain an understanding of the language and literacy context: O What language do you speak at home with your spouse, children, or other

family members? O What language does ______________ (the child or adolescent client) use to

speak with you? His/her siblings? O What do you talk about with ______________? O Do you or does anyone in your family read children’s books to ______________?

In what language are those books written? How often does this happen? O Do you or does another family member sing songs or play rhyming/word

games with ______________? Immigration is stressful for almost any family, even when families make the choice to immigrate to improve their quality of life or the quality of life of their children. Refugees, however, may have an especially challenging experience both prior to and post-immigration (Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011). Be prepared to hear experiences of violence, sacrifice, and trauma. Information about these experiences may not come out at the beginning of the assessment process, but may be shared as trust develops. Also, information may be relayed in different ways. For example, individuals from some cultures will use narrative or metaphor to convey their experiences rather than succinctly answering questions.

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

73

Caregiver and Child Cultural Norms and Values, and Acculturation We agree with cross-cultural clinical psychologists who recommend that multicultural assessments include an assessment of acculturation (e.g., Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Rivera, 2008; Sattler & Hoge, 2006), which implicitly involves an assessment of cultural norms and values. Both Rhodes and colleagues and Sattler and Hoge provide a set of interview questions that psychologists might use to assess acculturation. These interview schedules, which can be used with the assistance of an interpreter, examine issues such as language used at home in various contexts; social affiliation; daily living habits including foods, media access, holidays, and traditions; and cultural values. These interviews typically involve asking direct questions such as does your child’s behavior seem consistent with or different from your culture; what kinds of foods do you cook most often in your household? (Rhodes et al., 2005, p. 132). Although these interview questions may be helpful in specific contexts, in our clinic we have found that valuable information about culture and acculturation often becomes apparent in the context of discussions about children’s academic achievement and family relationships. Sometimes, it is the stories that people tell or specific comments that are interjected that enrich psychologists’ understanding of cultural values and acculturation (Sterlin et al., 2000). It is important to note who comes and does not come to the intake interview and the reaction if asked whether the other parent might come. Sometimes, a father might come to an interview without his wife, but in the discussion it emerges that the wife is the primary caregiver. This might be because the father knows the societal language, or knows how to drive or access public transit, whereas the mother takes care of the house and several children. It also might occur because the mother is employed and the father is not, or because the mother does not speak the societal language, or is prevented by her husband from having access to people outside their culture. In some cases, grandparents or other extended family members are the primary caregivers. Although the parents may appear to be integrated into the culture of the immigrant-receiving country, the grandparents who do the child rearing may not speak the language and maintain the cultural traditions and practices of their country of origin. Second, if the child is having challenges with schoolwork, the emotions surrounding this and the parents’ goals for the child are likely to emerge when they are asked how they feel about their child’s school and achievement. Third, when parents describe children’s behavior that is concerning to them (e.g., child is described as argumentative and disobedient), it is helpful to ask for examples, as families from some cultures may have more or fewer expectations for conformity than most families in the immigrant-receiving country (see Changgun, Case Study 5, in the Appendix). Fourth, parents’ reactions to a tentative suggestion for change may illustrate cultural norms and values. They may quickly retort that this practice is not something that they do in their family (see Amy, Case Study 1, in the Appendix).

74

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Psychologists may find themselves having to navigate religious and cultural stances that are in conflict with the norms and values of the immigrant-receiving country. For example, in our clinic in Toronto we sometimes work with adolescents who are “satellite children”—they study in Canada while their parents live in their home country (see Khalil, Case Study 4, in the Appendix). Although they are financially well provided for, this may present ethical and moral dilemmas for Canadians of European descent, where this would not be a common practice. It therefore may be useful for psychologists to consult with cultural interpreters and others to clarify dilemmas and their implications in their own minds. Sometimes, however, it may be necessary to respond quickly because there are child protection concerns. For example, in our clinic, we had to involve child protection services immediately when a 16-year-old girl was being sent back to the war-torn country of her birth for an arranged marriage against her will. The dilemma is to balance the issues of trust and child protection when the family is merely doing something culturally normative. Furthermore, it may be very challenging for psychologists not to be judgmental (Geva et al., 2000).

Attributions Parents’ attributions for their children’s difficulties are a key part of gaining an understanding of CLD children’s family context. Some parents may interpret the term learning disability as synonymous with intellectual disability, feel stigmatized, or reject the school’s point of view. They may agree that their children are not achieving at the expected level, but attribute that to insufficient effort on the children’s part (Yaghoub-Zadeh, Geva, & Rogers, 2008), inadequately developed L2 skills, or inadequacies of the educational system in the immigrant-receiving country (Yokota-Adachi & Geva, 1999). Some cultural groups might attribute learning or behavioral difficulties to the historical and current injustice inflicted on their community (Mitchell & Maracle, 2005) and other cultural groups might attribute the problem to metaphysical causes such as a spirit inhabiting the child or punishment for sins (Humphries et al., 2000). If those are their attributions, they would not see the relevance of a psychological assessment, nor would they view it as a priority to receive feedback, or to follow through on recommendations for intervention. Some parents feel ashamed when their children are not achieving at the expected level or are experiencing behavioral challenges. In some communities, having a child with a disability or behavioral disorder brings shame on the extended family and may have implications for the family status, social relations, and marriage of the child and siblings (Wynaden et al., 2005). Therefore, working with the family to understand their attributions for their children’s difficulties, and not being critical of the family, is important. For the most part, interviews with families occur in schools (in the case of school psychologists) or in private or public clinics. Some families, however, may be uncomfortable in certain contexts. For example, some families who are not

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

75

educated may feel overwhelmed when they enter a school, or may distrust the school, and therefore may not disclose information in that setting. Other families may be reluctant to enter hospital or mental health settings due to perceived stigma. Some families prefer to work with psychologists from their own culture, whereas others prefer to work with people outside their community to maintain anonymity. They may be more comfortable going to a university clinic than a psychiatric hospital because the latter would be perceived as stigmatizing. As a result, flexibility may be needed in terms of location. Home visits are an option but there are problems such as establishing boundaries and respect, and in some cases personal safety of the psychologist (Dunst et al., 1988).

Parenting Stress Psychologists should be aware that many CLD parents of special needs children experience very high levels of parenting and life stress (e.g., Osborne & Reed, 2010; Theule, Wiener, Jenkins, & Tannock, 2013). Parenting stress occurs when parents perceive the demands of parenting to exceed their resources (Deater-Deckard, 2004). Parenting stress may occur due to the demands of a challenging child, due to problems experienced by the parent (e.g., depression), and due to contextual issues such as low levels of social support (e.g., Abidin, 1992) and poverty (McLeod & Shanahan, 1993). Parenting stress has implications for parental health, and interferes with their ability to provide appropriate supports to their children and to respond to parenting interventions (Kazdin, 1995). There is considerable evidence that parents of children with a variety of learning and behavioral difficulties experience higher parenting stress than most other parents (e.g., Theule et al., 2013). Although there is very little research in this area, the prevailing evidence suggests heightened parenting stress among immigrant families (e.g., Su & Hynie, 2011). The stress that is incurred due to immigration is likely because of factors such as poverty, the requirement to function in the L2, changes in family roles, loss of community, the requirement for cultural adaptation, and preexisting mental health issues.

WORKING WITH LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL INTERPRETERS Psychologists frequently have to determine after a brief telephone conversation or consultation with secondary sources such as a teacher or principal whether an interpreter is needed. This is clear when the family has not acquired basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). The decision as to whether an interpreter is needed is less clear when the family has BICS but has not acquired cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Table 4.2 lists issues psychologists should consider when selecting and preparing an interpreter for working with CLD families. Interpreters are much more

76

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

than translators because they adapt their language to the level of the family, and often provide psychologists with key information about the language and culture (Rhodes et al., 2005). Often family members insist that they do not need an interpreter or that a member of the family can do the job. When they say one is not needed, psychologists should acknowledge that their L2 skills are good but that it might be best to have an interpreter because of the need to talk about difficult subjects using professional language. Some families suggest that one of the family members act as an interpreter. This is frequently problematic because the family member cannot be neutral. It may be helpful to explain that when a family member is interpreting it is very difficult for that person to also participate in the interview. Psychologists should be aware that even among people who speak the same language and have emigrated from the same country there may be ideological, social class, religious, and political differences that could interfere significantly with building trust and communication between the family and the interpreter. There are many advantages to hiring professional interpreters. They may be skilled at acquiring the trust of families, adapting their language to the level of the family, interpreting accurately, and letting psychologists know when there are linguistic or cultural issues they have not considered. However, professional interpreters are expensive and are not always available. Furthermore, some might not have a background in mental health and education, and may, as a result, not be as skilled as an individual who has that background but is not professionally trained as an interpreter. Consequently, a colleague or student who speaks the family’s language, a settlement worker, or a volunteer may be the only or sometimes the best option. Psychologists should be in the driver’s seat in interviews when an interpreter is employed. They should brief interpreters in advance about the purpose of the interview and the key issues. Psychologists should endeavor to have eye contact with the family rather than the interpreter and use nonverbal cues that the family might relate to. When the family enters, greet them personally to enhance communication and to acknowledge that the psychologist and the family are engaging in a dialogue. Try to speak at the same level as the family’s home language. Sometimes it may be necessary to bring the interview back to the task when it appears as if the interpreter is diverging, by gently asking the interpreter about the nature of the discussion. After the family has left, take some time to debrief the interpreter about impressions about the family language, culture, functioning, and relations among family members that emerged from the interview.

CONCLUSION Although it is always important to gain an understanding of families when doing a psychological assessment, and to acquire a comprehensive developmental, health, and educational history, there are additional challenges associated

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

77

with this task when working with CLD families. These challenges include establishing a trusting relationship with people who may not understand the process and who, due to previous experiences, may find it difficult to trust professionals. Language issues when the family does not speak the societal language are an obvious challenge. Cultural differences are possibly less obvious but equally challenging. Therefore, there are many adaptations to the interview process that psychologists need to learn.

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: UNDERSTANDING THE FAMILY CONTEXT To Do

Not to Do

Research community history and current political and social issues.

Stick rigidly to a standardized interview protocol.

Think carefully about who should be at the interview (e.g., grandparents) and the location.

Be rigid about the time of the appointment.

Try to use language that the family will understand.

Talk down to the family or use complex language they cannot understand.

Spend time to create trust—confidentiality may be very important due to a heightened perception of stigma.

Assume that the family does not care about the child if they come late, appear distracted, or have a different agenda.

Ask about immigration and language history, and, where relevant, experiences with violence that might induce trauma.

Have a child or family member act as an interpreter.

Strive to understand parents’ attitudes and attributions for the child’s problems.

Talk to the interpreter instead of the family.

Listen and analyze the narrative instead of expecting direct answers to questions.

Assume that if the family does not speak the societal language, they are not educated.

Take great care in selecting and preparing interpreters and ask for their help with cultural interpretation.

Assume that the family will understand complex ideas in their L2 if they have BICS.

78

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support Informal Sources of Support O
Which

O
Who

O
Do

adults do you have contact with every day or at least once a week?

do you feel close to?

they live with you or nearby?

O
How

do you communicate (face-to face; phone; Skype; Internet)?

O
Does

________________ (adult with whom the client has frequent contact) help you take care of your son/daughter? What do they do?

O
When

you are worried about your son/daughter, do you talk to ________________ about your concerns and ask for help?

O
If

you don’t, why not? Do you feel ashamed or embarrassed? Do you think they might want you to do something for them but you don’t have the time or energy?

O
If

you do ask for help, are they helpful? How?

(continued )

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

79

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support (continued) O
Do

they say you are doing a good job or criticize you for the way you are taking care of ________________? What do they say?

O
Does

________________ help you in other ways (e.g., give you money, help you have a good time or feel good about yourself)?

O
Can

you depend on ________________ when you need him/her?

O
Does

O
Do

________________ expect you to help him/her? How does that make you feel?

you help ________________? What do you do to help ________________?

O
Do you enjoy helping ________________? Is helping ________________ stressful for you?

Community Supports O
Do

you belong to or go to any community groups? What group(s) do you belong to? (Give examples such as community center, immigrant settlement center.)

O
Do

you go to a place of worship—church, mosque, or synagogue?

(continued )

80

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support (continued) O
How

often do you get together with people in this group/place of worship?

O
How

often do you talk with people in this group/place of worship on the phone?

O
Do

you communicate with people in this group/place of worship through e-mail, text messages, or social media?

O
Do

people in this group help you with your son/daughter?

O
When

you are worried about your son/daughter, do you talk to ________________ (people in the group, settlement worker, minister, priest, or rabbi) about your concerns or ask for help?

O
If

you don’t, why not? Do you feel ashamed or embarrassed? Do you think they might want you to do something for them but you don’t have the time or energy?

O
If

you do ask for help, are they helpful? How?

O
Do

they say you are doing a good job or criticize you for the way you are taking care of ________________? What do they say?

(continued )

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

81

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support (continued) O
Does

________________ help you in other ways (give you money, help you have a good time or feel good about yourself)?

O
Does

________________ (name organization) expect you to do some work for them? How does that make you feel? Do you do it? Do you enjoy helping? Is it stressful for you?

O
How

satisfied are you with the support you get from ________________?

School and Child Care Supports O
Does

________________ (child client) get extra help with schoolwork? What kind of extra help does he/she get?

O
Does

________________ go to day care?

O
Does

________________ have a tutor to help with schoolwork? How did you find/choose this tutor?

O
Do

you get advice about how to help ________________ from his teacher? Special education teacher? Guidance counselor? Tutor? Other person at school? Child care worker?

(continued )

82

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support (continued) O
When

you are worried about your son/daughter, do you talk to ________________ (teacher, child care worker, principal, guidance counselor, school psychologist, or social worker) about your concerns or ask for help?

O
If

you don’t, why not? Do you feel ashamed or embarrassed? Since they don’t speak your L1, can you understand them when they talk?

O
If

you do ask for help, are they helpful? How?

O
Do

they say you are doing a good job or criticize you for the way you are taking care of ________________? What do they say?

O
How

satisfied are you with the support you get from ________________’s school or day care?

Other Professional Supports O
Who

does your family see when you are sick? Do all of you go to the same doctor? How did you find/choose this doctor? Does the doctor speak your language (L1)?

O
Does

________________ go to a person who does therapy? How did you find/choose the agency that does therapy? Do you participate in this therapy or meet with the therapist?

(continued )

4. UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY CONTEXT

83

Table 4.1 Parent Interview Questions to Determine Sources and Quality of Social Support (continued) O
When

you are worried about your son/daughter, do you talk to ________________ (doctor, therapist) about your concerns or ask for help?

O
If

you don’t, why not? Do you feel ashamed or embarrassed? Since they don’t speak your L1, can you understand them when they talk?

O
If

so, are they helpful? What do they suggest?

O
Do

they say you are doing a good job or criticize you for the way you are taking care of ________________? What do they say?

O
How

satisfied are you with the support you get from ________________?

84

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 4.2 Checklist for Working With Interpreters Interpreters’ Skills and Qualifications † Proficient in the family’s L1 † Proficient in the L2 † Responsive to levels of language skill and linguistic sophistication of the family † Understands importance of confidentiality and is careful about it † Maintains objectivity in spite of possible community or political differences † Knowledgeable about linguistic and cultural nuances † Background in education, health, or mental health † Excellent interpersonal skills Options for Locating Interpreters † Professional interpreters † Settlement workers † Community organizations † University students and staff Preparing Interpreter for Working With the Family † Confirm that there is no conflict of interest † Emphasize confidentiality, trust, and not being judgmental † Discuss need to adapt language to level of family (if necessary) † Request that interpreter not modify level of language that family uses and information when communicating with psychologist † Provide information about the type of information being communicated to family † Provide information about the type of information being solicited from family † Provide interpreter with written report or other documents that are the basis for the information being exchanged † Provide information about the diagnosis † Define some of the terminology that will be used

Assessment of Oral Language Proficiency CHAPTER 5:

Myth: Second-language (L2) children need to be assessed in their first language (L1) for the assessment to be valid. If you do not have appropriate L1 tasks and if you do not have access to qualified staff who can assess in the child’s L1, it is not possible to assess L2 learners. Fact: Although assessment in the L1 can be helpful, there are many pitfalls that need to be considered, and valid assessments of oral language proficiency (OLP) can be done exclusively in the L2.

T

his chapter provides guidelines for psychologists on the assessment of oral language proficiency (OLP) of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents who study in their second language (L2). One of the challenges that psychologists face is determining whether language and literacy difficulties are associated with children having to function and learn in their L2, with a language disorder, or with a learning disability. A comprehensive assessment of L2 oral language skills that compares the referred L2 learner to typically developing L2 learners may help make that distinction. This can be enhanced by an assessment of first-language (L1) language and literacy skills. Furthermore, having a comprehensive understanding of strengths and weaknesses in oral language informs instruction and program adaptations. We begin the chapter with a section discussing issues that should be considered in the assessment of OLP, including the aspects of oral language that should be assessed in L1 or L2, the factors that should be considered in interpreting assessment data, and the advantages and challenges of assessing children in their L1. We then describe specific methods for assessing OLP. The final section of the chapter discusses issues involved in interpretation of data from OLP assessments, including a discussion of the diagnosis of a language disorder. The chapter also includes specific tasks and observational schedules that psychologists might find helpful when conducting assessments of OLP.

86

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

The concepts and strategies discussed in this chapter are illustrated in several of the case studies in the Appendix. Amy’s case study (Appendix Case Study 1) shows how OLP might be assessed in a child who has not talked at school, with a focus on receptive language skills and pragmatics. The Boris case study (Appendix Case Study 2) provides guidance on assessment of vocabulary, with specific reference to emotion words and pragmatics. Diego (Appendix Case Study 3) and Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6) have severe language disorders and learning disabilities (LDs) as well as minimal exposure to the L2 at home. Assessment of L1 OLP and academic skills is illustrated in the Khalil (Appendix Case Study 4) case study.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER Most psychologists do not have a formal background in monolingual and second language (L2) development, and in language disorders. Consequently, it is important to work collaboratively with speech and language pathologists and L2 teachers. Nevertheless, as OLP is a key predictor of academic achievement in L2 children (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 2012; OECD, 2010b), and most tests of cognitive ability have significant language demands, it is very important for psychologists to be familiar with key aspects of language development, as well as the risk factors for problematic language development. Linguists conceptualize language as comprising five major components: phonology, semantics, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. These terms are defined in Table 1.1. As discussed in Chapter 3, assessing the language skills of L2 children and adolescents is a complex task that requires a good understanding of language development in various domains including phonology, semantics, morphosyntax, and pragmatics. These are important parts of an assessment of L2 children and adolescents who are referred for language and literacy difficulties, because of their association with word-level and text-level reading skills and spelling. Furthermore, assessment of OLP assists psychologists with the interpretation of low scores on reading tests that may be a result of poor OLP or inadequate schooling rather than LD. It is important to remember that acquiring breadth and depth of vocabulary skills, as well as correct morphosyntax in the L2, aids in oral communication, comprehension of instruction, reading comprehension, and written expression. Well-developed social communication skills are associated with the acquisition of positive social relationships in children and adolescents (e.g., Norbury & Sparks, 2013). Therefore, all five areas should be examined as part of an OLP assessment in L1 and L2.

Factors to Consider in Interpreting L2 Assessment Data As discussed in Chapter 3, factors such as age of arrival, L1 attrition, positive and negative transfer, L1/L2 typological differences (e.g., Romance languages, Slavic

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

87

languages, Semitic languages, and logographic languages), and children’s use of a third language need to be considered. In addition, family related factors such as whether the societal language is spoken at home and the level of parental proficiency in the L2, the quality of parental L1, exposure to a sibling who speaks the L1 or L2, parental education, and opportunities to interact with the larger community should be determined. Finally, psychologists should examine whether students were given L2 instruction in their countries of origin. As a result of these factors, and due to the fact that most standardized tests are not normed on L2 learners, the norms from standardized tests should be used cautiously. In general, the scores provide some indication of the children’s current functioning but do not give an indication of ability. For example, a score at the first percentile on a receptive vocabulary test such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 1997), where children need to select from a set of four pictures the one that depicts the word that the psychologist says, only gives a crude measure of receptive vocabulary in the L2 and of the extent to which children struggle with grade level materials. In typical populations, vocabulary is highly correlated with IQ. However, this may not be the case for L2 learners, who have not had the opportunity to acquire age-appropriate vocabulary. A PPVT score at the first percentile may merely indicate that the student’s L2 vocabulary skills are developing as expected, and that the student needs to be given opportunities to learn the L2.

Advantages of Assessing Children in the L1 There are several advantages to including an assessment in the L1 for children and adolescents who are recent immigrants. First, assessment in the L1 may provide the most accurate reading of children’s current language and literacy skills (Cummins, 1984). Some students may be more fluent in their L1 than in their L2 and may have more advanced literacy skills in that language. Second, L1 assessment may acknowledge the legitimacy of their cultural and language background and experiences and may assess this most sensitively. Third, assessment in the L1 affords psychologists the opportunity to observe whether similar strengths and weaknesses are evident in L1 and L2. If a similar pattern is evident in both languages, psychologists might have more confidence in the conclusion that there is a fundamental language or learning disability and that this difficulty does not merely reflect language proficiency in the L2. If the student has relatively strong skills in the L1 and relatively weak skills in the L2, this may suggest that the difficulties reflect insufficient opportunities to learn and become proficient in the L2. Furthermore, psychologists might observe specific error patterns that reflect negative transfer from L1 to L2. As discussed in Chapter 3, examples of negative transfer may include foreign accent and pronunciation of specific phonemes, as well as difficulty with specific linguistic patterns involving syllable structure and grammatical rules. Nevertheless,

88

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

in normally developing individuals the frequency of these negative transfer errors tends to diminish with appropriate exposure and instruction in the L2 (Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011).

Challenges of Assessing Children in Their L1 There are several challenges involved in assessing students in their L1. First, if immigration has not occurred recently or the child was born in the immigrantreceiving country, the child’s knowledge of the L1 may not be at par with children in the home country. Second, standardized measures of OLP and academic achievement may not exist or be available in the home languages of many children. Furthermore, when they do exist, they may not be valid for a child who has not been attending school in the L1 for several years because they were not normed on this population. It is typically not appropriate to use standardized test norms on L1 tests if the child has been living in the immigrant-receiving country for 2 to 3 years or less (Cummins, 1984). It is likely inappropriate to assume that exposure to the home language in a heritage program is similar to that which might occur in the country of origin. Third, individuals who understand normal development, test administration, and interpretation, and who can administer L1 tasks, may not be available. While well intentioned, the use of interpreters is often problematic because they are not experienced in administering tests; they often interpret rather than simply translate the information and the children’s responses, and they may not be sensitive to subtle, but important, linguistic distinctions (Westernoff, 1991). Furthermore, L1 assessors who have not had specific training in psychology or related fields may be judgmental, especially when the family comes from a low-socioeconomic-status (SES) background, belongs to a cultural subgroup, or uses a different dialect. Fourth, as previously indicated, in many instances formal standardized test materials are neither available nor appropriate. In that case, it is important to work with individuals who know how to interpret informal data (e.g., narratives) in terms of normative development.

METHODS FOR ASSESSING OLP IN L2 STUDENTS Assessment of OLP is best accomplished using a combination of standardized oral language tests, tasks that have been developed for research purposes, authentic tasks such as analysis of spontaneous conversation, storytelling and story retelling, and dynamic assessment. As discussed in Chapter 4, obtaining a detailed family history, including parental perspectives on the child’s development in L1 and sibling development and achievement, is an important aspect of the assessment and aids substantially in interpreting other assessment data.

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

89

Standardized Tests and Research-Based Tasks In Table 5.1, we list a number of English-language tests and tasks that can be used effectively to assess various aspects of phonological processing, semantics, morphosyntax, and pragmatics in L2 children and adolescents. The standardized tests were not created or specifically normed for L2 learners, but can be used to describe their functioning. We are not claiming that the list of tests in Table 5.1 is comprehensive, or that these tests are necessarily better than others. The tests we list are valid measures of the constructs, have good psychometric properties, and have been used in research on L2 learners. Psychologists in countries where the societal language is not English are likely able to access similar standardized tests in their language and/or may develop analogous informal tasks. We recommend three tasks that were originally created for research purposes with English-language learner (ELL) children; there are no standardized test equivalents to our knowledge. The Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task (David, Koyama, & Geva, 2007; Table 5.2) provides useful information about difficulties with auditory discrimination. Geva found that in Grade 1, ELLs have difficulty discriminating between certain pseudoword pairs, where one of the pseudowords includes a phoneme that does not exist in their home language and the other pseudoword includes a similar phoneme that does exist in their L1 (e.g., poss-poth). By the end of Grade 2, however, most ELLs have learned to discriminate between similar phonemes, but ELLs with LD continued to experience difficulty in discriminating between such minimal pairs (as did their monolingual counterparts). Error analysis helps determine the specific phonemic contrasts that the child finds difficult. In the Derivational Suffix Test (Singson, Mahony, & Mann, 2000), children are required to select one of four real words or pseudowords with different derivations that would fit in a sentence. The real words occur rarely in the English language and the pseudowords are all based on a nonsense root word with various derivations (e.g., What a completely _____ (tribacious/tribaism/tribacize/tribation) idea). This task focuses on students’ knowledge of the morphosyntactic function of suffixes and the morphosyntactic function of different derivations, an area of difficulty for most L2 students. Performance on this task correlates with reading achievement of ELLs (Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Luo, 2011). The Written Root Word Vocabulary Task (Table 5.3; adapted from Biemiller & Slonim, 2001) focuses on children’s familiarity with root words that represent academic vocabulary. Children listen to or read sentences that include the target words and are asked to provide a definition for each target word (e.g., “The period of the dinosaurs was very interesting.” Write a sentence that explains what the word period means in this sentence). The words represent different levels of frequency, starting with words typically known by Grade 2 EL1 children (e.g., arm) and moving to academic words known only in later grades. Jean and Geva (2009) have shown that even more advanced ELL children in Grades 5 to

Table 5.1 English Standardized and Research-Based Language Tests and Tasks, and Spontaneous Observations Language Component Phonology

Receptive

Expressive

Spontaneous Observationsa

Auditory discrimination

Pseudoword auditory discriminationb

Observe pronunciation of confusing phonemes in speech

Rhyming

CELF-IV phonological awareness KTEA phonological awareness

Rhyming games. Recognition and production of rhyming words

Segmenting

CTOPP elision CELF-IV phonological awareness KTEA phonological awareness

Blending

CTOPP blending words CELF-IV phonological awareness KTEA phonological awareness

Phonological memory

CTOPP phonological memory

Vocabulary

PPVT-4 WISC-IV vocabulary CELF-IV word definitions EVT CELF-IV expressive vocabulary; The Written Root Word Vocabulary Task

90 Semantics

Tests and Specific Tasks

School-based basic concepts

The Written Root Word Vocabulary Taskc

Games such as Simon Says responding to directions using spatial, quantitative, and time concepts

Classification

CELF-IV word classes

Discourse

CELF-IV understanding spoken paragraphs

General knowledge

CELF-IV sentence assembly KTEA-2 oral expression

Storytelling and retelling Spontaneous conversation “Tell me about your last birthday” (or other experience).

WISC-IV information and comprehension CELF-IV familiar sequences

Spontaneous conversation Functional knowledge

Morphosyntax Length of utterance

Spontaneous conversation

91

Inflections

CELF-IV word structures DST

Sentence structure

CELF-IV—sentence structure

Cohesion Pragmatics

CELF-IV Pragmatic Profile

Spontaneous conversation CELF-IV recalling sentences, formulated sentences

Spontaneous conversation

KTEA-2 oral expression Formulated sentences

Spontaneous conversation Spontaneous conversation

Note: CELF-IV, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals; CTOPP, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DST, Derivational Suffix Test; EVT, Expressive Vocabulary Test; KTEA2, Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement; PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Observations made in spontaneous conversations, games, storytelling or retelling, and dynamic assessment (see Table 5.4). See Table 5.2. c See Table 5.3. a

b

92

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

6 continued to lag behind their EL1 counterparts on such academic words, and were not likely to be familiar with words that approximately correspond to their grade level. Similar results were found in a study focusing on high-school ELLs (Lin, Ramírez, Shade, & Geva, 2012), which also found that performance on this task correlated highly with reading comprehension and writing. The results of assessment using this task can be used to inform an instructional program in academic vocabulary.

Language Samples Eliciting a language sample is a key part of any assessment of oral language in L2 children and adolescents. This is important because none of the structured tests and tasks provide data about authentic communication, including pragmatics and the strategies children use to communicate. It is important to tape record the language sample so that it can be analyzed later. The following are strategies to elicit a language sample that can be adapted for the age and interests of the children. 1. Listen carefully to the quality of language in spontaneous conversation. It is important to wait longer than might be typical in conversations with L1 children to give the child a chance to respond. 2. Ask children to describe an experience they had (e.g., tell me about your last birthday/your trip to visit your grandparents/your first day in your new school). It is important to be sensitive to cultural differences and not assume that all children share the same experiences. Start with open-ended questions, but use probes for children who are unable to answer them. For example, if the open-ended question is Tell me about your last birthday, and the child does not respond, psychologists might ask: When was your birthday? Did you celebrate it? How did you celebrate it? Where did you celebrate it? What did you eat? Did you have a cake? Did you like it? Why did you like/not like it? Who made the cake? What did it look like? Note that these questions are designed to elicit comprehension of who, what, where, when, why, and how. If the child is unable to answer these it might then be appropriate to move to questions that require only yes/no answers. 3. Ask the child to retell a story, describe or tell a story about a picture, or tell a story based on a picture book that does not have written text. 4. Use pretend-play with young children because it is conducive to eliciting language. One method is to play a radio talk-show host game, where the psychologist interviews the child, and he or she interviews the psychologist, using a microphone from the tape recorder to make the role-play seem more authentic. 5. Playing word games may also effectively elicit an oral language sample while simultaneously establishing rapport and facilitating assessment of specific concepts. For example, I Spy With My Little Eye can provide information about comprehension of colors, shapes, and spatial concepts. The psychologist might begin

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

93

by describing something (e.g., I spy with my little eye something red, something big, something that can be eaten); once the child guesses he or she might take over and have the psychologist guess. Another example is Simon Says. In this game, the player(s) only comply with the direction when prefaced by Simon Says. While playing this game the psychologist can find out whether the L2 child can respond to directions and the complexity of the directions, as well as identify body parts and activities (e.g., Simon Says jump up and down; Simon Says before you jump up and down touch your nose). For older learners games such as 20 Questions are appropriate. In this game, one player thinks of a person, an animal, or an object, and the other must guess what it is by asking a maximum of 20 questions. This game is helpful in assessments because the best strategy to solve the problem is to use superordinate category names to narrow down the options (e.g., “Is it an animal?” rather than “Is it a cat?,” and then narrow it down to pets). Psychologists should model this form of questioning and then see if the child utilizes this strategy in other episodes of the game. Twenty questions also allow for assessment of children’s ability to generate questions using correct grammar. The Barrier Game involves giving specific directions that have to be followed only on the basis of verbal instructions. The psychologist and the child each has a set of identical materials with a barrier in between to prevent seeing the other person’s actions. For phonological awareness rhyming games, asking children to generate a word beginning or ending with a specific sound is also helpful. In one variant children are allowed to produce real or silly words. 6. Ask children to teach the psychologist a game they know. Again, this task can provide information about the ability to provide comprehensible instructions, use language appropriately, and pragmatic skills.

The Oral Language Checklist (see Table 5.4) provides guidelines for the kind of information that should be sought in language samples and how to analyze the samples. For the most part, pragmatic difficulties are easily observed in spontaneous conversation. However, it may be necessary to focus the conversation to find out whether the child is able to use language for various functions and comprehend and use humor. Some of the difficulties may be related to developing OLP in L2. For example, problems with making small talk, adjusting speech to the level of the listener, and understanding jokes, as well as slow response time and refusal to speak, may reflect L2 difficulties when children perform these skills competently in L1. (See case studies of Amy, Appendix Case Study 1, and Boris, Appendix Case Study 2, who had pragmatic language difficulties in their L1 and L2, suggesting that their difficulties are not mainly due to being L2 learners.) Similarly in a game such as Simon Says, errors may be due to unfamiliarity with L2. However, the items on the checklist related to the semantic component of language all pertain to basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS); most children who have been exposed to the L2 acquire these skills within a few years of exposure. Whenever possible, psychologists should

94

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

try to confirm whether an L2 child is familiar with this vocabulary and these concepts in the L1. If phonological difficulties are noted, further testing using instruments such as the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2; Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, & Pearson, 2013) is recommended. It is important to consider, however, whether the errors that are made are examples of negative transfer from L1. The items in the morphosyntax component are challenging for L2 learners even though most children, even in the primary grades, have mastered them in their L1. For example, if both the L1 and the L2 mark the plural explicitly (e.g., adding an S in English), L2 learners acquire these markers soon after being exposed. However, L2 learners whose L1 does not include explicit markers of plurality (e.g., Chinese) typically take longer to acquire this skill; early on they typically make errors of omission, and when they are more advanced they overgeneralize (Jing, Tindal, & Nisbet, 2006; Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Typically developing L2 children master these skills over time even if their L1 does not mark these components explicitly. L2 children with language disorders, however, often continue to experience difficulties in acquiring various language components (Paradis et al., 2011).

Response to Intervention/Dynamic Assessment One of the key methods for assessing oral language in L2 learners is using response to intervention and dynamic assessment. For children in L2 programs, L2 specialist teachers often have a solid understanding of the types of progress other students who have come from similar backgrounds typically make. Soliciting their opinion about whether an L2 learner who has been referred to school teams or for psychological assessment is making typical progress is valuable. As recommended by Gutierrez-Clellen and Pena (2001), dynamic assessment of oral language skills can inform psychologists about whether children who have not learned specific skills are capable of doing so with targeted instruction. “Dynamic assessment is a procedure that determines whether substantive changes occur in examinee behavior if feedback is provided across an array of increasingly complex or challenging tasks” (Swanson & Lussier, 2001, p. 321). The goal of dynamic assessment is to determine the child’s potential for change when given support, and ability to use this knowledge independently (i.e., transfer of learning). There are three methods commonly used in dynamic assessment: pressing the limits, graduated prompting, and test–teach–test (Gutierrez-Clellen & Pena, 2001). Pressing the limits when assessing L2 learners sometimes involves rephrasing instructions to ensure that the child understands the task or providing instructions in the L1. It may also involve clarifying the children’s responses in order to determine what it is they mean or allowing them to repeat what they

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

95

said in the L1. Sometimes, when children appear anxious, it is appropriate to return to a task later when they appear to be more comfortable. Graduated prompting is used when children do not appear to be able to respond and may need more cues in order to show their understanding or potential understanding of a concept. The underlying principle of graduated prompting is to gradually increase the scaffolding that is needed in order to learn the concept and provide a correct response. Psychologists should keep records of the number and type of prompts. For example, when eliciting oral language in response to a picture, psychologists may begin with Tell me what you see in this picture or Tell me a story about this picture. If the child is unable to respond in an elaborated way to such general prompts, the psychologist might ask a more specific question such as What is the boy doing in the picture? If the child is still having difficulty, it might be appropriate to ask Is he eating cake, or is he eating an apple? An even more transparent prompt might be: Is the boy eating cake or climbing the stairs? Psychologists who use the test–teach–retest method first assess specific knowledge or skills, then teach the concepts that the child does not understand, then assess understanding. An example of this might be the teaching of prepositions such as on, in, under, and above or, for more advanced L2 students, teaching the academic words from the Written Root Vocabulary Test (Table 5.3). If the child does not know these concepts, a teaching program would then be designed. It may be necessary to try various methods to teach the concepts, and it may also be necessary to repeat instruction to ensure retention. The different methods may vary in terms of level of concreteness, use of visual cues, manipulatives, examples, drawing, songs, games, computerassisted instruction, providing the word in L1, and productive versus receptive responses. Psychologists should record the number of repetitions needed, the method that seems most effective, and the kind of prompts that the child responds to.

Specific Methods for Assessing L1 Language and Literacy Skills In addition to the methods already described, there are some specific strategies that may be helpful for assessing L1 OLP and literacy skills. If available, psychologists should examine student report cards from the home country. These report cards provide information about the students’ previous school experiences and teachers’ expectations. It may be necessary to have these report cards translated by a native speaker of the language. When reading these report cards, psychologists should note at what age the student commenced school, the kind of school the student attended, whether the student attended school consistently, whether the student was retained for one or more grades, the language of instruction, and the subjects taken. It may be challenging to interpret grades without context, but psychologists should scrutinize comments

96

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

about achievement and learning skills carefully. Comparison with report cards of siblings may also be a useful source of information. Some students might have had psychological or speech and language assessments done in the home country that describe the level and nature of L1 functioning. When they exist, a receptive vocabulary test such as the PPVT-4 can be administered in the L1. Although the norms may not be valid, the relative command of vocabulary in the L1 and the L2 may be informative. There are several strategies that can be used to assess reading skills in L1. Relevant standardized tests may exist in the L1 (but, as previously noted, one should beware of the use of L1-based norms). If there is access to basal readers from the home country, conducting an informal reading skills inventory using these materials has many advantages because the benchmarks for typical achievement in that country are implicit in the materials. Other alternatives include the use of Internet-based print materials, storybooks (especially if readability levels can be established), songs, poetry, magazines, and newspapers. L1 literacy assessment is illustrated by the Khalil case study (Appendix Case Study 4). Various materials and tasks may be used to assess writing skills in the L1, and vary in the level of demand. When there is reason to expect that the student has had minimal education in the L1, tasks such as writing one’s name, writing the alphabet, and information about self and family can be used. More advanced tasks include writing a story in response to a story starter, spelling from dictation using curriculum benchmarks, and analyzing a school assignment done in the L1 that involves expository text (Cummins, 2012; Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008). .

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER It is a complex task to interpret the type of data we suggested that psychologists collect in relation to OLP. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the interacting factors described in Chapter 3 that influence L1 and L2 language development and that may impact decision making about a possible language disorder or learning disability. Psychologists should not confine interpretation to test scores. They should instead consider children’s functioning in the interacting language domains (i.e., phonology, semantics, morphosyntax, pragmatics), combining the data from different sources of information (e.g., standardized tests, analysis of discourse in language samples, dynamic assessment, information provided by teachers and family) that provide insight into the different aspects of language functioning. This typically involves doing thorough discourse and error analyses. Table 5.5 lists a series of questions that psychologists should ask themselves when interpreting the data they obtain. The questions regarding phonological processing are important to consider because of the considerable research showing that phonological processing deficits are associated with word-level reading disabilities (e.g., National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000; Vellutino, Fletcher,

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

97

Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Nevertheless, L2 children and adolescents also have challenges with discrimination of phonemes that are not typically used in their L1; difficulties with these phonemes should not be construed as reflective of a language disorder or LD. With regard to semantics, as reported in Chapter 3, typically developing children and adolescents lag in vocabulary development in their L2 for several years after immigration and the onset of schooling. Although they are expected to acquire BICS relatively quickly, delays in acquiring cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in comparison to their native-born peers are to be expected. Therefore, examining the retention of vocabulary following instruction, as well as verbal retrieval problems, may be more indicative of LD or language disorder than absolute levels of vocabulary. Identifying gaps in the vocabulary and concepts needed to access the curriculum is important, as teaching these words and concepts might have substantial impact on subsequent academic achievement (Kieffer, 2012). With regard to morphosyntax, error analysis may reveal whether challenges in this area are due to negative transfer from the L1 or due to not mastering the specific skill. Explicit instruction in differences in morphosyntax patterns may then be helpful. It is important to determine whether the atypical social communication patterns of L2 learners are typical of others who speak their L1. As children and adolescents acquire the social communication (pragmatic) patterns of their peers relatively quickly (e.g., Chen & French, 2008), persistence of these patterns in the L2 is likely to be a concern. Furthermore, if these social communication difficulties are not typical of the L1 or the L2, it may be relevant to consider other possible problems and diagnoses such as a social (pragmatic) language disorder or an autism spectrum disorder. The criteria for a language disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013, p. 42) are “persistent difficulties in the acquisition and use of language across modalities … due to deficits in comprehension or production.” The specific examples of these difficulties listed in the DSM-5 are “reduced vocabulary,” “limited sentence structure,” and “impairments in discourse,” all of which are characteristic of individuals speaking in their L2. Furthermore, the criteria stipulate that these difficulties are “substantially and quantifiably below those expected for age, resulting in functional limitations in effective communication, social participation, (or) academic achievement.” All of these descriptors apply to L2 children and adolescents. Thus, the only way to differentiate L2 from a language disorder is to determine whether the onset of the difficulties occurred in early childhood in the L1, and whether progress in acquiring the L2 is similar to that of other children and adolescents in a similar context, including siblings (Elbro, Daugaard, & Gellert, 2012). This differentiation is illustrated in three case studies reported in the Appendix (Diego, Appendix Case Study 3; Khalil, Appendix Case Study 4; and Aisha, Appendix Case Study 6). How should psychologists interpret L1 assessment data? The first aspect of analysis is to determine whether the student has any proficiency in the L1, as

98

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

well as the level of proficiency. In particular, it is important to consider whether the command of the home language is limited to everyday informal language, or whether the student has a command of more sophisticated, academic language (BICS vs. CALP). It is less likely that a child who has spoken the L1 at home but never studied it in an academic setting would have CALP. Some refugees who might also have had interrupted education or a poor quality of instruction may also have poorly developed L1 language and reading skills for these reasons. Furthermore, some children will not have the opportunity to maintain language and literacy skills in the L1. When L1 and L2 share features (e.g., have nearly the same alphabet and are from the same language family, such as both being Romance languages and using the Latin alphabet), children may maintain L1 language and reading skills longer, even if they are no longer being taught in that language (Cummins, 2012). Although it is often valuable to assess children in the L1, due to the challenges, it is not always possible to do so in a valid way. L1 assessment should be viewed as one piece of the puzzle, and other strategies should be used to fill in other pieces to complement the results of the L1 assessment. This does not mean, however, that assessments that rely exclusively on data collected in L2 are not valid. In the course of clinical decision making, psychologists should consider the contextual and demographic factors that influence L1 and L2 learning. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the age of arrival of immigrant or refugee children is inversely related to children’s acquisition of L2 OLP, and parent education is positively related to it. Children living in homogeneous communities, where everyone speaks their L1 and there is minimal exposure to the L2 outside of the classroom, may progress more slowly in the L2 but maintain the L1. If the school community is linguistically homogeneous, they may interact with peers primarily in the L1. The key issue is not that the children are using their L1. Maintenance and development of the L1 can be very healthy from many points of view (Bialystok, 2009; Cummins, 2012; Genesee, 2009), as long as children get sufficient exposure to the L2. It is also important to consider whether learning of L1 and L2 was interrupted, as is the case for many refugees, children who move schools frequently, and children who return to their home country and then come back to the immigrant-receiving country, sometimes more than a year later (see Khalil case study, Appendix Case Study 4). This interrupted schooling can impact learning in all children, but may have more impact on and occur more frequently for children who are immigrants and refugees.

CONCLUSION Assessment of oral language skills is a very important aspect of the psychological assessment of children whose home language is different from the language of instruction. This assessment is complex and psychologists should note

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

99

that one size does not fit all. Psychologists need to have a deep understanding of language development in L1 and L2 and of the intraindividual and contextual, demographic, instructional, and cultural factors that impinge on this development.

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: ASSESSING OLP To Do

Not to Do

Remember that language is complex and takes a long time to develop so interpreting test norms should be done judiciously.

Assume that standards and norms can be applied once the child appears to be fluent in the L2.

Assess phonological processing, morphosyntax, and semantics with an emphasis on vocabulary and pragmatics.

Avoid assessing OLP skills if it is not feasible to do a L1 assessment.

Ensure that OLP tasks assess both BICS and CALP.

Confine OLP assessment to a vocabulary test.

If there are teachers or clinicians who speak the child’s L1, then assessment of L1 language and literacy should be conducted, preferably as close to the time of immigration as possible.

Assume that L1 skills will be retained and progress similarly to other children from the home country when CLD students receive most of their schooling in the immigrantreceiving country.

Use a combination of standardized tests, tasks designed to measure specific processes, and authentic oral language samples.

Assume that students are acquiring language normally if BICS has been acquired.

Use a response to intervention approach combined with dynamic assessment to determine the best approach to teaching the L2 for children who are struggling.

Avoid diagnosing children and adolescents with a language disorder unless there is some certainty that their language delays are not typical of others with similar exposure to the L2.

When interpreting assessment data, consider Apply a one size fits all strategy that ignores age of arrival, opportunities to learn the L2, age of arrival in the immigrant-receiving and comparisons with a similar reference country, exposure and opportunity to group acquire the L2, school interruption, language typology, and positive and negative transfer. BICS, basic interpersonal communication skills; CALP, cognitive academic language proficiency; CLD, culturally and linguistically diverse; L1, first language; L2, second language; OLP, oral language proficiency.

100

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.2 Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task Child’s name __________________________ Date _______________________

Tester _____________________

Background Information: Home language(s) _______________________ Age of exposure to the L2 _______________________ Other relevant information _______________________

Instructions: I am going to say pairs of nonsense (silly, made up) words that do not exist in English. You have to listen carefully when I say each pair and say “same” when the two nonsense words are the same and “different” when the two nonsense words are not the same. Let us try some examples. Example 1— Here is an example. Listen. LOP – LOP. Did I say the same thing? If the child says “same,” say: Yes, LOP and LOP are the same. If child says—“different,” say: LOP and LOP are the same. Do not provide other feedback.

Example 2— Let’s try another example. Listen. DON – BON. Did I say the same thing? If the child says “same,” say: DON and BON are not the same. If child says “different,” say: Yes, DON and BON are different. Do not provide other feedback.

Ex. 1. lop—lop Ex. 2. don—bon

D D

S S

Total correct: Different (out of 18)_______________________ Total correct: Same (out of 14)_______________________ Comments:

(continued )

101

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Table 5.2 Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task (continued) 1. thonn—von

D

S

17. lenn—lenn

D

S

2. tekk—tekk

D

S

18. tonn—tonn

D

S

3. sen—fen

D

S

19. thop—zop

D

S

4. togg—togg

D

S

20. mak—mag

D

S

5. tep—tet

D

S

21. lath—lash

D

S

6. nush—nush

D

S

22. jekk—jekk

D

S

7. keath—keev

D

S

23. noz—nov

D

S

8. shen—sen

D

S

24. noove—noove

D

S

9. monn—monn

D

S

25. nesh—neff

D

S

10. poth—poth

D

S

26. zeem—zeem

D

S

11. konn—komm

D

S

27. theak—theak

D

S

12. meathe—meez

D

S

28. lup—lut

D

S

13. noff—noss

D

S

29. muff—muss

D

S

14. boz—boz

D

S

30. tas—tas

D

S

15. joof—joof

D

S

31. foom—shoom

D

S

16. bish—biss

D

S

32. zam—vam

D

S

102

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.3 Written Root Word Vocabulary Task Do I Know What This Word Means? Name:

_______________________

Date of Birth: _______________________

Examiner: _______________________ Date: _______________________ Examples Car

I bought a new car. Car means something you ride in.

Arm

Johnny fell and broke his arm. Arm means a part of your body.

Boulder

Tom found the boulder was too heavy to move. I don‛t know.

Remember! In each sentence, explain what each word in bold means. 1. Drop

The ball dropped from his hand.

2. Voice

Stephanie’s voice could be heard from far away.

3. Fresh

A fridge keeps food fresh.

4. Spread

Use a knife to spread the jam.

5. Subtract

Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.

6. Nation

He has lived in two nations.

7. Through

The test continued through the day.

(continued )

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

103

Table 5.3 Written Root Word Vocabulary Task (continued ) Remember! In each sentence, explain what each word in bold means. 8. Peep

She peeped around the corner.

9. Space

There is space for only three passengers.

10. Right

I want just the right dress.

11. Math

John got his math work done quickly.

12. Parcel

The parcel was delivered to the office.

13. Delinquent

The delinquent arrived at the courtyard.

14. Shot

Go to the doctor to get your shot.

15. Gull

The gulls were eating the food.

16. Republic

The Republic of Mexico chose not to join.

17. Character

Difficult times in life may show the true character of a person.

18. Transit

The children took transit to school.

(continued )

104

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.3 Written Root Word Vocabulary Task (continued ) Remember! In each sentence, explain what each word in bold means. 19. Tally

The teacher kept a tally of days missed.

20. Cartilage

She suffered from torn cartilage.

21. Former

The former Prime Minister spoke to the people.

22. Litter

The room was littered with empty cups.

23. Matron

The matron came to the social.

24. Haul

It was a long haul from Mexico to Canada.

25. Curious

What a curious thing to say!

26. Etch

I am going to etch a metal plate in art class today.

27. Garble

He garbled his words.

28. Abrasive

The material is abrasive.

29. Popular

He was elected by popular vote.

30. Trawl

We were trawling when the storm came up.

Source: Adapted from Biemiller and Slonim (2001).

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

105

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist Name: ______________________

Date of Birth: _____________

Date: ________________

School: _______________________ _______________________ Examiner: _______________________ _______________________ Directions for Teacher 1. As soon as you decide to use the checklist, immediately respond to the items on which you have already observed the child’s language skills.

2. Observe the child in the classroom for a few days, checking off new skills as they are observed.

3. Spend about a half an hour individually with the child doing activities and asking questions designed to determine the child’s skills on the remaining items.

4. Develop an oral language program to teach the skills not yet acquired.

Directions for Psychologist or Speech and Language Pathologist 1. If possible, ask the classroom teacher to check off skills he or she has observed.

2. Record an oral language sample.

3. Spend about a half an hour individually with the child doing activities and asking questions designed to determine the child’s skills on the remaining items.

4. Develop an oral language program to teach the skills not yet acquired.

(continued )

106

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Social Communication (Pragmatics) Skill

Never

With Prompts Appropriately

Never

Sometimes

Responds to questions Asks questions Initiates a conversation Sustains topic in a conversation Mastered conversational turn takinga Greets others Makes small talk Adjusts speech to level of listener Understands simple jokes Tells simple jokes Uses language to: Ask for help Inform Persuade Demand Provide support Communication Problems

Often

Interrupts others who are speaking Dominates conversation Talks excessively Switches topics inappropriately Slow response time Talks to self in public Refuses to speak Does not respond when spoken to directly (continued )

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

107

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Communication Problems

Never

Sometimes

Often

Perseverative speechb Echolalic speechc Makes inappropriate marks Makes sound effects In a conversation, listens and speaks when appropriate; bAsks the same question or says the same thing over and over; cRepeats back what was said to him or her.

a

Notes:

Understanding Language (Receptive Language/Semantics) Receptive Vocabulary:

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Standard score

____________

Percentile

____________

Age equivalent

____________

Identifies Body Parts:

Play Simon Says for these parts in scrambled order

Head _____ Hair ____ Eyes_____ Ears____ Nose____ Mouth_____ Chin_____ Cheeks_____ Eye lashes_____ Eye brows_____ Neck____ Shoulders_____ Chest_____ Stomach____ Hips_____ Back_____ Arm____ Elbow_____ Wrist_____ Hand_____ Fingers_____ Thumb_____ Palm____ Legs____ Thigh_____ Knees_____ Ankle____ Foot_____ Heel_____ Toes_____ Skill

Never

Sometimes

Consistently

Follows routine instructions (e.g., Get your lunch box.) Follows simple one-part command (e.g., Touch the ball.) Follows simple two-part command Follows simple three-part command (continued )

108

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Skill

Never

Sometimes

Consistently

Follows simple four-part command Follows instructions phrased in complex sentence (e.g., Before you open the door, pick up the pencil.) Responds to Who questions appropriately Responds to What questions appropriately Responds to Where questions appropriately Responds to When questions appropriately Responds to Why questions appropriately Responds to How questions appropriately Basic Concepts Used in School The following concepts are normally understood by children by the end of Grade 1, and used correctly and consistently by the end of the primary grades. Assess comprehension (comp) and expression (expr) by playing games, using manipulatives, and doing activities in the gym. Concept Spatial

Comp Expr

Concept Quantity

Comp

Expr

Concept Month

Top

More

Bottom

Less

Big

One

Miscellaneous

Little

Two

Same

Away from

Some

Different

Next to

Many

Alike

Inside

Some but not many

Separated

Medium

Comp

Expr

Year

In order

Middle

Most

Together

Far

Whole

Apart

Farther

Half

Other

Farthest

First

Matches (continued )

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

109

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Concept Spatial

Comp Expr

Concept Quantity

Near

Second

Nearer

Third

Nearest

Last

Through

Not first or last

Around

Almost

Over

As many

Corner

Several

Behind

Zero

Row

None

Center

Every

Side

All

Below

Pair

Right

Equal

Left

Least

Comp

Expr

Concept Month

Comp

Expr

Forward Backward

Time

Above

Before

Below

After

Between

Beginning

Under

End

Wide

Never

Narrow

Sometimes

Wider

Always

Widest

Day

Notes:

(continued )

110

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Speaking the Language (Expressive Language) Expressive Vocabulary:

Expressive Vocabulary Test

Standard score

____________

Percentile

____________

Age equivalent

____________ Content/Semantics

Skill

Never

Sometimes

Consistently

Never

Sometimes

Frequently

Express basic needs Describe objects in environment Express abstract concepts Provide minimal information Elaborate on ideas On request can say: Full name Address Phone number Birthday Teacher name Names of family members Days of week Months of year Expression Problems Verbal retrieval (word finding) Sequencing information (continued )

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

111

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Pronouncing Sounds/Phonology Speech unintelligible _____________________ Stutters __________________ Jumbles words together ______________ Problems with the following sounds: R_________ L _________ S_________ F_________ V_________ Th _______ Other Phonology Problems:

Notes:

Grammar/Morphosyntax Average utterance length: 1 word ____ 2 words ______ 3 to 4 words ____ 5+ words_____ Skill

Never

Sometimes

Consistently

Speaks in full active voice sentences Uses passive voice correctly Uses compound sentences Uses sentences with embedded clauses Uses interrogative (questions) correctly Uses negative correctly Uses present tense correctly Uses past tense correctly Uses future tense correctly Uses conditional tense correctly Uses S to form plural correctly Speaks in complex sentences (continued )

112

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.4 Oral Language Checklist (continued) Syntax Problems Over-regularizes plurals (e.g., mouses) Over-regularizes past tense (e.g., gived) Substitutes pronouns (specify) Other (specify) Notes:

Never

Sometimes

Frequently

5. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

113

Table 5.5 Questions to Consider When Interpreting Oral Language Data in L2 Learners Phonological Processing O
To

what extent is failure to discriminate between specific phonemes or produce specific phonemes likely related to patterns in L1 (e.g., L vs. R among Japanese; B vs. V among Spanish-speaking individuals; th vs. t or s in various languages), or insufficient exposure to the L2, rather than fundamental difficulties with auditory discrimination or articulation?

O
Are

the learner’s auditory discrimination and articulation errors pervasive or limited to those phonemes that are new in the L2?

O
Does

the child have specific problems with phonological short-term memory for pseudowords? Deficits in this area are associated with vocabulary growth in L2 learners (Farnia & Geva, 2011).

Semantics O
Has

the learner acquired everyday vocabulary?

O
Does

the learner have basic spatial, quantitative, and time concepts that are used in everyday classroom instruction?

O
Has

the learner acquired vocabulary and concepts that are consistent with grade-appropriate curriculum?

O
Has

the learner acquired vocabulary and concepts that are consistent with what is being taught in class?

O
Does

the learner have difficulty retrieving learned vocabulary?

O
What

strategies does the learner use when having verbal retrieval difficulties (e.g., say it in L1, circumlocution, avoidance, use nonspecific words such as thing)?

O
Does

the learner retain vocabulary and concepts after instruction?

Morphosyntax O
To

what extent are errors with inflections (e.g., adding an S to denote a plural, an ed to denote past tense) likely related to patterns in L1 or insufficient exposure to the L2, rather than fundamental difficulties with morphological awareness?

O
To

what extent are errors with derivations (e.g., two words come from the same root such as heal/health; prefixes or suffixes that change the meaning such as decent/indecent; suffixes that change the grammatical category such as communicate/communication; forming compound words such as popcorn) likely related to patterns in L1 or insufficient exposure to the L2, rather than fundamental difficulties with morphological awareness? (continued )

114

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 5.5 Questions to Consider When Interpreting Oral Language Data in L2 Learners (continued) O
To

what extent are errors with word order likely related to patterns in L1, or insufficient exposure to the L2, rather than fundamental difficulties with syntax (e.g., the word not comes before the verb in English and the word pas comes after the verb in French)?

Pragmatics O
Is

the pattern of interaction in conversation confined by difficulties with phonological processing (e.g., articulation of words is frequently unintelligible), inadequate vocabulary, inadequate knowledge of L2 conventions (e.g., terms that are used to be polite as opposed to conveying meaning), or confusing morphosyntax?

O
Is

the conversational pattern typical of people from the learner’s cultural/linguistic group (e.g., rate of speech; turn-taking style; differentiating speech with listener’s age or status)?

O
Is

the pattern of stress and intonation typical of the learner’s L1?

O
If

the child arrived in the immigrant-receiving country prior to age 11 or 12 and has lived in that country for 5 years or more, might retention of the L1 patterns of stress and intonation be due to insufficient exposure to the L2 or due to a language disorder or learning disability?

O
If

the child arrived in the immigrant-receiving country prior to age 11 or 12 and has lived in that country for 5 years or more, might problems with conversational turn taking, literal interpretations, and understanding humor be due to a disorder that involves social communication such as an autism spectrum disorder?

L1, first language; L2, second language.

Assessment of Intelligence

CHAPTER 6:

Myth: Nonverbal IQ tests are the most valid measures of intelligence for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and youth. Fact: Multiple methods are required to obtain a broad estimate of the intelligence of CLD children and youth.

C

ross-cultural psychologists maintain that “the manifestations of intelligence are embedded in culture” (Georgas, 2003, p. 29). Some cultures emphasize cognitive and others social aspects of intelligence. Consequently, assessment of intelligence and diagnosis of intellectual disability in culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents are controversial and challenging. In this chapter, we discuss some of these controversial and challenging issues, and describe methods of assessing intelligence in CLD children and adolescents, that is, individuals whose language and cultural backgrounds are significantly different from the normative group of most standardized IQ tests. We begin with a discussion of definitions and conceptualizations of intelligence, and then proceed to discuss the question of whether the intelligence of CLD children and adolescents should be assessed. The next section addresses several issues that psychologists need to consider when evaluating intelligence, including developing rapport; fluid and crystallized intelligence; adaptive behavior; using IQ tests to establish IQ/achievement discrepancies to diagnose learning disabilities; and determining when to use formal IQ tests. The chapter then turns to a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of assessment techniques, including several types of intelligence tests, and offers alternative approaches for evaluating intelligence that can help to overcome some of the difficulties, including modifying test administration, dynamic assessment, and ecological assessment. The chapter concludes with a general discussion of clinical formulation with specific

116

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

reference to diagnosis of intellectual disability in relation to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5). We refer to the case studies in the Appendix describing Boris (Case Study 2), Diego (Case Study 3), Khalil (Case Study 4), and Aisha (Case Study 6) in this chapter.

DEFINING AND CONCEPTUALIZING INTELLIGENCE IN A MULTICULTURAL CONTEXT Modern Western conceptions of intelligence emerged in the early 1900s with the work of Binet, whose primary objective was the identification of children in France who would require special attention and instructional adaptations in the educational system (Benson, 2003a; Wolf, 1969). Binet and his associate Simon (1983) maintained that intelligence is a combination of many skills that are shaped heavily by the environment, are influenced by various factors, change over time, and can be compared among children with similar backgrounds (Kamin, 1995; Siegler, 1992). Binet and Simon (1983) also believed that the assessment of intelligence should involve skills that are not explicitly taught at school (e.g., attention, memory, and problem solving). Binet’s notion that intelligence is a broad concept that cannot be quantified with a single number is echoed in recent conceptualizations such as Gardner’s multiple intelligences: In addition to verbal and quantitative abilities, intelligences include musical, mechanical, physical, and social skills (Gardner, 1993). As indicated by Sattler (2008), like Binet, Wechsler was interested in developing a test to assess cognitive ability, but unlike Binet he viewed intelligence as “an aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, think rationally and to deal effectively with his (or her) environment” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 7). Although these traditional conceptualizations identify cognitive abilities that predict academic achievement in Western societies, and the tests that have been developed based on these conceptualizations are reliable and valid in relation to the cultures of the test developers, these conceptualizations of the types of abilities that are important to be successful in society may not be universal. Consequently, the tests may not be valid for some CLD children and adolescents. We propose that Sternberg’s notion of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1999) should guide assessment of CLD children and adolescents. Sternberg (2005, p. 189) defines successful intelligence as “(a) the ability to achieve one’s goals in life, given one’s sociocultural context; (b) by capitalizing on strengths and correcting or compensating for weaknesses; (c) in order to adapt to, share, and select environments; (d) through a combination of analytical creative, and practical abilities.” This conceptualization implies that intelligence should be assessed in terms of the abilities that are needed to succeed in specific cultures and environments. Sternberg (2005), however, also discussed the need to select, adapt to, and shape new environments, suggesting that these abilities are universal.

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

117

For example, immigrants typically choose to come to the immigrant-receiving country; in doing so, they adapt to and shape their new environment. Although the statement that people achieve their goals through a combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities suggests that there is a general intelligence factor, Sternberg’s theory is essentially a theory of multiple intelligences because he contends that intelligence involves capitalizing on strengths and correcting for or compensating for weaknesses. For several reasons it is important to view intelligence in broad terms, as suggested by Sternberg, as opposed to a fixed set of cognitive abilities that correlate with academic achievement, as implied by the Spearman (1904), Cattell– Horn–Caroll (CHC; Horn & Cattell, 1966), and Wechsler (1958) models when assessing the intelligence of CLD children and adolescents. Because of their different language and cultural backgrounds, they may not have acquired the same background knowledge and skills as children from the cultures on which the test has been normed. Within any cultural group or society, however, there are individuals who are more successful than others. Sternberg (2005) contends that these individuals have higher levels of analytical, creative, and practical intelligence that helps them thrive within their specific context. Analytical intelligence involves the ability to use abstract reasoning to analyze, evaluate, judge, compare, and contrast in relation to familiar problems, whereas creative intelligence involves the ability to solve novel problems. Similar to adaptive behavior, practical intelligence involves applying knowledge to problems involved in everyday life. With regard to analytical intelligence, the problems that are familiar to children in the dominant culture on which IQ tests are based may not be familiar to children who are from a different culture. Therefore, it is important to ensure that conclusions about analytical ability are based on problems that are familiar to the children being assessed. It may be more appropriate to make cross-cultural comparisons on novel tasks. However, some children may be reluctant to engage in new tasks due to cultural values or anxiety. As discussed in the following text, practical intelligence, or adaptive behavior, may differ in relation to context.

VALIDITY OF MEASURES OF COGNITIVE ABILITY FOR CLD CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS? In the past 50 or more years, intelligence testing has been a primary tool for diagnosing children with an intellectual disability, for differentiating an intellectual disability from a learning disability (LD), and, more recently, for identifying students for gifted programs. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, only licensed psychologists (or people they supervise) are permitted to administer standardized individual IQ tests (e.g., Turner, DeMers, Roberts Fox, & Reed, 2001). Many school districts require administration of an IQ test prior to providing special needs education. Given these traditions and administrative exigencies, there is

118

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

often considerable pressure on psychologists to administer IQ tests to almost every child they assess. Clearly, whether cognitive abilities of CLD children should be assessed and how they should be assessed is a controversial subject, as reflected in arguments in scholarly journals, commonly used psychological assessment textbooks, and the media (e.g., Benson, 2003a; Brody, 1997; Cummins, 1984; Greenfield, 1997; Williams & Ceci, 1997). Vazquez-Nutall et al. (2007) argued that there are “fundamental theoretical and psychometric problems that arise when traditional psychometric procedures and tools are used with CLD children” (p. 272). They cited Neisser (1998), who stated that the concept of intelligence is culturally defined and differs across cultures, and argued that all intelligence tests are based on an originating culture. Benson (2003b) and others point out that standardized intelligence tests are not typically normed on samples that reflect cultural and linguistic diversity and are therefore biased and provide inaccurate assessment of the intellectual ability of CLD children and adolescents. This suggests that psychologists must think carefully about how they conceptualize intelligence, whether their assessments are consistent with that conceptualization, and whether the demographics of the child or teen they are assessing are captured by the normative sample. Sattler (2008, pp. 162–167), on the other hand, argued that the claim that standardized IQ tests are culturally biased is weak. Sattler used the statistical criteria to measure test bias proposed by Flaugher (1978). The analyses he cited indicated that although Euro-Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans differ in mean scores on the Wechsler tests, the concurrent and construct validity of these tests do not differ for the three groups. Essentially, the ability of IQ tests to predict academic achievement and the constructs identified through factor analyses are common to all three cultures, though the test norms may not apply. We propose that the use of standardized individual IQ tests to assess cognitive ability in CLD children and adolescents needs to be considered on a caseby-case basis. As indicated in the section on initial decision making in Table 6.1 (Questions 1 and 2), there are two key questions to consider. The first question, whether assessing intelligence is necessary, implies that psychologists must think about the purpose of obtaining this information for specific children. Although sometimes problematic, administering an IQ test may be necessary because school systems will not provide special needs education without this information. From a diagnostic point of view, an IQ test may be helpful in differentiating an intellectual disability from a LD in low-achieving children, as depicted in the Diego (Case Study 3), Khalil (Case Study 4), and Aisha (Case Study 6) case studies in the Appendix. In addition, some of the specific tests that measure cognitive processes might aid in the explanation of why a child is not learning. When thinking about this first question, however, it is important to remember that intelligence, at least as defined by Sternberg (2005), is a broader construct than cognitive ability as measured on most standardized IQ tests. The

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

119

second question asks whether a specific standardized intelligence test is appropriate for the specific child or teen. Answering this question involves having some understanding of the individual child’s exposure to the language of the test, previous educational experiences, culture, and level of acculturation to the culture of the immigrant-receiving country. It also involves knowledge of the normative sample of the test and the degree to which it includes children such as the child being assessed.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING INTELLIGENCE Developing Rapport As was discussed in Chapter 4, developing trust and rapport with CLD children and adolescents requires considerable sensitivity on the part of psychologists. Children and parents from some cultural backgrounds may not understand the significance given to IQ test information in many school systems. Psychologists often begin their assessment with IQ tests, which could be problematic when the purpose of the session is not clear to the child or teen. Children may, as a result, not put in the amount of effort that is required to perform in accordance with their potential. Psychologists should therefore delay administering IQ tests until they are confident that children are comfortable working with them and understand why they should work hard. In contrast, children from some cultures may have parents who are very concerned about their performance on the tests and may, as a result, come to the session with high levels of anxiety. Some parents may even seek ways of training and preparing their children for the IQ test, especially when the score on the test is a criterion for placement in a program for gifted students.

Crystallized Versus Fluid Intelligence Psychologists conceptualize fluid intelligence as involving thinking, reasoning, and new learning, while crystallized intelligence captures knowledge and broader understanding that has developed through learning (Horn & Cattell, 1966). Psychologists often assume that fluid intelligence (i.e., the ability to analyze complex patterns and relationships) typically involves nonverbal skills, and does not differ cross culturally, whereas crystallized intelligence (i.e., the use of verbal and numerical knowledge that is typically acquired in school and through experience) varies across cultures and is therefore highly influenced by linguistic and cultural differences. Some assessment books discuss the cultural bias inherent in tests of crystallized intelligence, recommending that fluid, “culture-free,” intelligence tests be used for individuals from different cultural backgrounds (Sattler, 2008). Some children, however, have not had experience

120

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

with tasks such as doing puzzles, sorting by shape, constructing and analyzing patterns with blocks, or problem solving with two-dimensional shapes, and this lack of experience affects their performance (Greenfield, 1997; Tzuriel & Kaufman, 1999; Vazquez-Nuttall et al., 2007). They may also not have acquired effective test-taking strategies. Although most psychologists would assume that tests of crystallized ability are not valid for recent immigrants from impoverished countries with inadequate previous schooling, the validity of these tests may also be compromised for educated immigrants who have been exposed to the culture of the immigrant-receiving country for several years, because they may still have poor oral language proficiency (OLP) in their second language (L2; see Chapter 3). Immigrants from developing countries or those who come from rural environments may be especially disadvantaged, whereas those who lived in urban environments in the same countries may have had exposure to the knowledge assessed on intelligence tests that is similar to that of children born in the immigrant-receiving country (Vazquez-Nuttall et al., 2007).

Discrepancy Definitions of LD Some jurisdictions require that a discrepancy between IQ and achievement be established in order to diagnose LD. Several researchers have argued convincingly that discrepancy definitions of LD have inherent problems, including the overlap between IQ and achievement and the similar cognitive profiles of low-achieving children who are classified as LD on the basis of a discrepancy definition and children classified on the basis of low achievement and average intellectual ability (e.g., Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012). Discrepancy definitions are especially problematic for CLD children (Geva & Herbert, 2012). This is because of the language and cultural bias of IQ tests and, as discussed in Chapter 3, the lag in their development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) and the time it takes to develop cultural knowledge. When IQ scores underestimate the cognitive ability of a CLD child, it is unlikely that a predetermined level of discrepancy would be attained. Psychologists in jurisdictions that require a discrepancy between IQ and academic achievement may need to advocate for CLD children who are LD, even though they may not be able to establish discrepancy.1

Adaptive Behavior and Intelligence Benson (2003b) pointed out that conceptions of intelligence vary cross culturally, with some cultures viewing social competence, and what is conceptualized

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

121

as adaptive behavior, as important components of intelligence. Furthermore, behaviors that may be adaptive in one culture may not be adaptive in another. As stated by Sternberg (2004, p. 327): The components of intelligence and the mental representations on which they act are universal—that is, they are required for mental functioning in all cultures. For example, people in all cultures need to execute the metacomponents to (a) recognize the existence of problems, (b) define what the problems are, (c) mentally represent the problems, (d) formulate one or more strategies for solving the problems, (e) allocate resources to solving the problems, (f) monitor solution of the problems, and (g) evaluate problem solving after it is done. What varies across cultures are the mental contents (i.e., types and items of knowledge) to which processes such as these are applied and the judgments as to what are considered “intelligent” applications of the processes to these contents. One implication of Sternberg’s theory is that psychologists should be aware that items on IQ tests may not reflect the types of content that CLD children are familiar with, even when they have the metacomponents to solve problems. Therefore, observations of how children solve problems that are meaningful to them are crucial and often may be more informative than standardized intelligence tests. For example, immigrants, refugees, and other groups such as Aboriginals and Roma who live in isolated or homogenous communities may have adaptive knowledge and skills that are valued by their cultures and needed in their communities, but not some of the skills of the dominant society. These might include knowledge about how to catch a fish in a frozen lake, sell trinkets to tourists, or tell stories that embed a moral lesson. There may also be differences in the types of adaptive behaviors learned by girls and boys in different cultures. Psychologists frequently use standardized comprehensive measures of adaptive behaviors such as the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition (Oakland & Harrison, 2008) and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 2005). These scales measure daily living skills, communication skills, social skills, functional academic skills, skills for navigating the community, motor skills, and maladaptive behaviors. Although the items on these tests provide information about some of the adaptive skills that CLD children and adolescents have acquired, consistent with the previous discussion, we strongly suggest that psychologists interpret the scores with caution for CLD children and adolescents. We suggest that adaptive behaviors be assessed through interviews that examine the types of skills that parents view are needed, and the amount of instruction required to teach these skills.

122

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

When to Assess Intellectual Ability Using Standardized IQ Tests There are no standard guidelines as to when it is appropriate to formally assess intelligence in CLD children. It is clearly not appropriate to assess intellectual ability immediately after arrival for immigrant and refugee children, and more importantly, to interpret performance on the basis of published norms. Factors that psychologists should consider in relation to administering a standardized IQ test include the age of arrival of immigrants and refugees; the opportunities children have to learn the L2 and cultural knowledge of the dominant culture of the immigrant-receiving country; the extent and quality of schooling in the home country or refugee camp; and the extent of the differences between the children’s home culture and the dominant culture of the immigrant-receiving country. With regard to age of arrival and exposure to the L2 and cultural knowledge in the immigrant-receiving country, it is reasonable to assume that earlier arrival may be related to more, and perhaps better, opportunities for acculturation and language learning, extending over more years. In some jurisdictions, this means that intelligence tests are not administered for at least 5 years following immigration. Children who are refugees often have had minimal opportunities to attend school or have had interrupted schooling. The quality of the schooling in refugee camps may also be substandard. Consequently, it may be important to delay administration of standardized IQ tests until the children have had several years of schooling in the immigrant-receiving country. Furthermore, as described in the Diego Case Study 3 (Appendix), refugee children who have experienced trauma may not be able to focus and perform on intelligence tests (Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011). The extent of cultural differences between the country of origin and the immigrant-receiving country may have an impact on when to administer nonverbal intelligence tests. Children from highly developed countries or who lived in middle class urban households in other parts of the world but do not speak the language of the immigrant-receiving country may be similar to their middle class native-born counterparts in terms of their access to the types of tasks measured on IQ tests. This experience may include exposure to toys and educational games, including computer games that give them the opportunity to manipulate two- and three-dimensional shapes and solve matrices and mazes. They may also have access to the societal values associated with that knowledge (i.e., cultural capital). On the other hand, children coming from developing or Fourth World countries or regions have not had exposure to the kind of cultural capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) that is characteristic of middle class people in the developed world. For them, administration of nonverbal tests should be delayed for several years.

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

123

STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE IN CLD CHILDREN It is useful to consider five complementary approaches when selecting tasks to assess intelligence in CLD children and youth: (a) administering broadband standardized tests in the standard form; (b) administering narrow-band nonverbal single construct tests; (c) modifying administration of standardized tests; (d) dynamic assessment; and (e) ecological assessment.

Administering Broad-Band Standardized Tests in the Standard Form Much of what was previously discussed with regard to the challenges presented by tests that are culturally and linguistically biased refers to standardized intelligence tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), and the Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition (WJ-III). Notwithstanding precautions related to the challenges of using the norms of the immigrant-receiving country with CLD children, it is important to recognize that within groups of CLD children from the same background there will be individual differences in cognitive ability and in the ability to develop knowledge and problem-solving skills that are measured on these broad-band tests. The challenge for the psychologist is that generally there are no valid norms for interpreting such data.

Administering Narrow-Band Single Construct “Nonverbal” Tests Sometimes psychologists attempt to bypass the cultural bias conundrum by administering nonverbal, narrow-band tests of intelligence that focus on a single construct. Publishers of these tests often report that they are “culturally fair.” For example, tests such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003) or the Leiter International Performance Scale, Third Edition (Leiter-3; Roid, Miller, Pomplun, & Koch, 2013) are believed to be somewhat less culturally biased as they do not directly involve verbal responses or prior knowledge. However, even though the Raven’s and similar tests are considered to be relatively culture free, it has been shown that performance may reflect cultural differences in exposure to the types of problem solving assessed by these tests (Kozulin, 1999; Tzuriel & Kaufman, 1999).

Modifying Administration of Standardized Tests There are three principal ways of modifying administration of standardized tests when assessing CLD children and youth: contextualizing vocabulary, modifying instructions, and suspending time limits. For many children, contextualizing

124

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

vocabulary (e.g., defining a key word, relating that word to their cultural context, saying the word in the first language (L1), or allowing them to respond in their L1) may provide insights into their understanding of problems and bypass the obstacle of their inadequate L2 proficiency. For example, on the Comprehension subtest of the WISC-IV children are asked to describe advantages or disadvantages of various phenomena. If the children do not know the meaning of the word advantage, they would not be able to answer the question. Determining their understanding of the phenomena would be possible, however, if the psychologist defines these words. It may also be necessary to modify instructions or provide additional sample items for tests when the instructions are worded in a complex way. For some children such as those who are extremely anxious, it may be helpful to suspend timing on timed tests.

Dynamic Assessment Dynamic assessment is an assessment approach that establishes whether substantive changes occur in children’s behavior when psychologists provide feedback on increasingly complex or challenging tasks during the process of assessment (Swanson & Lussier, 2001). In the assessment context, psychologists provide a learning environment, teach the assessment task, and observe children’s responsiveness to instruction. There are two main approaches to dynamic assessment of intelligence. The first approach involves the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD; Feuerstein, Feuerstein, & Gross, 1997). The LPAD is a clinical, nonstandardized dynamic assessment instrument, designed to reveal cognitive potential. It comprises 15 tasks that assess the degree to which children are able to modify their perception, memory, attention, logical reasoning, and problem solving. The second approach is sophisticated testing of the limits on tests that psychologists routinely administer. This involves providing cues that progress in terms of the amount of information and skills that are taught. Low-level cues include readministering items and clarifying instructions. Mid-level cues include providing additional sample items or examples and changing the modality of stimuli. High-level cues involve teaching strategies to accomplish the task and examining progress made after intervention. Psychologists might teach children strategies to solve a maze or to memorize a series of digits; then, they determine whether the children learn the strategies, apply the strategies to new tasks, apply the strategies at a later date, and improve performance. For example, in research involving children coming from Ethiopia, a “Fourth World” region, Kozulin (1999) and Tzuriel and Kaufman (1999) showed that it is possible to improve children’s performance on the Raven’s Matrices with intensive and targeted intervention. Nevertheless, there were individual differences in how easily children improved their performance and these differences were interpreted as a dynamic indicator of intelligence. This approach can be applied to other nonverbal problem-solving tests.

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

125

Ecological Assessment Ecological assessment may be helpful in determining the degree to which the results of standardized IQ tests are valid (Vazquez-Nuttall et al., 2007). An important area to observe is whether there is support for language and literacy in the L1 or L2 at home. This support may include parent modeling of behaviors that enhance literacy including reading in L1, taking L2 classes, or making other sacrifices in order to have the money to hire a tutor. Some families, however, may have other priorities that may take time away from school learning, including requiring adolescents to get a part-time job to support the household, or to do large amounts of child care and housework. Parents, however, should not be judged for doing this because they may be experiencing considerable stress. It is also important to observe the quality of school and community support that may be available for CLD children. This might include whether teachers respect the child’s language and cultural diversity, and communicate that respect to other students, and whether the child thrives when access to L2 instruction and classroom accommodations is provided. The Pathways to Education program described in Chapter 2 is an example of a community-based support program for adolescents in high-risk urban communities that began in a Toronto high-risk neighborhood where the population is predominantly new immigrants. Pathways has several components including parent-student support workers who provide counseling, individual after-school tutoring, and the provision of funds by various donors that ensure secondary education tuition. Students who have had the opportunity for support from programs such as Pathways to Education, or from early intervention programs, and who experience difficulties that exceed those of other community members may have lower intellectual ability. As previously discussed, IQ tests may not assess the characteristics and behaviors that are valued by different cultures nor their conception of whether those constitute intelligence. These may include the ability to remember complex patterns for crafts such as weaving (Greenfield, 1997), storytelling, or leadership abilities. Consequently, through observation in the home, school, and clinic environments it is important to assess whether children have skills that might be adaptive for their culture of origin. Furthermore, children may have talents that suggest that their abilities exceed those measured by the tests (e.g., Aisha, Appendix Case Study 6, was an exceptional athlete and showed leadership abilities in the context of competitive sports).

CLINICAL FORMULATION AND DECISION MAKING As previously discussed, assessment of intelligence is considered the domain of psychologists, who often receive referrals where the intellectual ability of a child or adolescent is one of the major questions. The question implicit in these

126

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

referrals is often whether the child has an intellectual disability. For this reason, clinical formulation and decision making is very important. We begin this section by discussing the questions that psychologists should consider in the process of arriving at a clinical formulation. We then address the diagnosis of an intellectual disability using DSM-5 criteria. We add some cautions about the reporting of the results of intelligence tests.

Flexible Clinical Formulation Based on an Understanding of the Influence of Language and Culture on Cognitive Development It is clear from the previous discussion that making inferences about intelligence from tests and behavioral observations is especially challenging in relation to CLD children and youth. Simple analysis of profiles on standardized intelligence tests is insufficient. Psychologists must have strong conceptual knowledge of normativecognitive development and the influence of language and culture on that development in order to arrive at a valid interpretation. Table 6.1 (Data Interpretation) lists several questions that psychologists might ask themselves when integrating behavioral observations and test data with contextual information. We illustrate the clinical decision making by discussing three of the case studies in the Appendix (Boris, Case Study 2; Diego, Case Study 3; and Aisha, Case Study 6). If a standardized IQ test was given, the first decision is to determine whether the results are valid. In addition to typical issues such as having achieved rapport or the child being tired, inattentive, ill, or anxious, compromises to the validity of the test may include the child not having test-taking strategies, and not understanding the purpose of testing and therefore not putting in the effort required. We therefore did not give strong credence to the scores from several of the tests administered to Diego. If it is determined that the child has given his or her best performance on the test, the decision of how to weigh various types of data is crucial. One approach is to examine the degree of linguistic and cultural loading on various subtests. Ortiz (2004) created a matrix with degree of cultural loading and degree of linguistic demand as the two dimensions and placed various subtests of the WISC-III and WJ-III on that grid. Ortiz (2008) updated the matrices to include the WISC-IV and the KABC-II. Subtests such as Matrix Reasoning (WISC-IV) and Spatial Relations (WJ-III) have low linguistic and cultural loading, whereas subtests such as Vocabulary and Comprehension on the WISC-IV and Verbal Comprehension and General Knowledge (WJ-III) have high linguistic and cultural loading, with other subtests being in between. Using this approach, it may become evident that lower scores are obtained on subtests with higher linguistic or cultural demands, suggesting that those subtests are not valid reflections of ability and that more weight in interpretation should be given to the subtests with lower linguistic demands or cultural loading. In this case, it may not be valid to report some aggregate or composite scores. The testing should be

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

127

supplemented by dynamic and ecological assessments in this situation. In terms of the case studies described in the Appendix, with the exception of Changgun, we either did not administer the parts of the test that assess crystallized ability (Amy, Case Study 1; Diego, Case Study 3; Khalil, Case Study 4; Aisha, Case Study 6), or initially concluded that the composite or full-scale scores on the IQ tests likely underestimated the cognitive ability of the children (Boris, Case Study 2). We then supplemented the IQ test with dynamic and ecological assessment. There is a tension between the expectation that the results of intelligence tests should be interpreted in accordance with a strict set of methods for analyzing protocols, as well as more flexible and thoughtful analyses. Some guidelines for interpreting intelligence tests such as the WISC-IV suggest that when a child’s functioning on a single subtest is anomalous (e.g., much higher than other scores) this anomalous score should be discounted (e.g., Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). We disagree with that guideline when working with CLD children and adolescents, because the test with the higher score may be more congruent with the child’s cultural background and as a result is a window into their ability. For that reason, we concluded that Diego (Appendix Case Study 3) and Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6) have low average or average intellectual ability. Some guidelines indicate that the results of tests administered in a modified way are less valid than tests administered in a standard manner. Psychologists, however, should be cognizant that the results of some modifications of standardized tests (e.g., instructions are elaborated on or given in L1, words are defined, time limits are suspended) likely provide more valid information than tests given in the standard manner because the language and cultural factors are included in the interpretation (see Khalil, Appendix Case Study 4). It is extremely important for psychologists to trust their observations and to weigh observational data equally or above test results in situations where test results do not appear valid. Data obtained from dynamic assessments and information from parents or teachers about the child’s adaptive skills are key components of the interpretation.

Diagnosing an Intellectual Disability Using DSM-5 Criteria Intellectual disability is the term used in DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) to replace the term mental retardation, which was used in previous versions of the DSM. Intellectual disability is a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests prior to children entering school. To be diagnosed as having an intellectual disability, children must meet the following three criteria: (a) “Deficits in intellectual functions such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience”; (b) “Deficits in adaptive functioning that result in failure to meet developmental and sociocultural standards for personal independence and social responsibility”; and (c) Onset of the disorder during the “developmental period” (p. 33).

128

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Psychologists are required to designate level of severity (mild, moderate, severe, or profound) “on the basis of adaptive functioning” (p. 33). The rationale given is that the level of support an individual requires is based on adaptive functioning. The text of the DSM-5 states that individuals with intellectual disability typically have a score of two or more standard deviations below the mean (i.e., 70 ± 5) on standardized IQ tests; however, the manual suggests that “clinical training and judgment are required to interpret test results” (p. 37). The DSM-5 mentions that there are individuals with intellectual disability in “all races and cultures.” The manual further indicates that “cultural sensitivity and knowledge are needed during assessment,” and that the “individual’s ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background, available experiences, and adaptive functioning within his or her community and cultural setting must be taken into account” (p. 39). Although the DSM-5 does not explicitly discuss the basis on which the previous factors should be taken into account in relation to CLD children and adolescents, Table 1 of the manual (pp. 34–36) gives helpful behavioral descriptions of individuals with mild, moderate, severe, and profound intellectual disability in three domains: conceptual, social, and practical. These behavioral descriptions may guide psychologists who are making clinical decisions about whether a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability is appropriate.2 For the most part, the behavioral descriptions of mild intellectual disability in the conceptual domain that are indicated in Table 1 of the manual overlap with Specific Learning Disorder (see Chapter 7). The key distinction is that children with mild intellectual disability have a “somewhat concrete approach to problems and solutions compared with age-mates” (p. 34). Because of their vocabulary limitations and delays in acquisition of CALP, it may be challenging to determine whether children and adolescents who are learning in their L2 have a “concrete approach.” Consequently, as previously discussed, it is important to be sensitive to any evidence of more abstract reasoning (e.g., on one subtest of an IQ test or in everyday problem solving) as opposed to composite scores on tests. For example, in addition to low average or average scores on some nonverbal tests involving spatial reasoning, Diego (Appendix Case Study 3) displayed evidence of more abstract cognitive ability when he engaged in problem solving to navigate a computer and MP3 player in spite of not being able to read any of the words. Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6) was able to reason abstractly in many contexts (e.g., figure out that she could use Google Translate to have the computer read to her; use sophisticated strategies when playing soccer). We did not observe similar evidence of problem solving in Boris (Appendix Case Study 2). With regard to the social domain, individuals with a mild intellectual disability are described as “immature in social interactions” (p. 34; see Boris [Appendix Case Study 2]). It is important, however, to ascertain that difficulties in “accurately perceiving peers’ social cues” are not associated with cultural differences in the cues given and in their interpretation. In the practical domain, the DSM-5 indicates that individuals with mild intellectual disabilities normally “function age-appropriately in personal care” but “need some support with complex daily living tasks” (p. 35).

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

129

Neither Diego nor Aisha needed support with complex tasks as long as they did not have literacy demands, whereas Boris needed to be taught explicitly and supervised closely. Although not applying to any of the cases we described in the Appendix, new immigrants who have recently arrived in the immigrant-receiving country and who previously lived in rural environments where they were not exposed to modern technology may initially need support, even though they have the capacity to learn new skills. It is therefore important to use interviews with parents to determine whether CLD children who are recent immigrants have practical skills that are required in their country of origin and to determine the degree of support they needed to acquire those skills. To conclude, given the assumption that an intellectual disability is a lifelong condition, and the stigma attached to this diagnosis, psychologists must be cautious when considering this diagnosis for CLD children and adolescents, and incorporate multiple data sources before reaching the conclusion. As described in the case study of Boris, there are some situations where the evidence is clear. In addition to results of IQ tests and interviews assessing adaptive (social and practical) skills, the presence of a genetic syndrome that typically is associated with an intellectual disability, intensive parental support for learning, and poor response to interventions designed to teach conceptual reasoning may increase confidence that the diagnosis is appropriate.

Reporting Results of Assessments of Intelligence Chapter 9 is devoted to issues involved in communicating results of psychological assessments. There are specific issues pertaining to assessment of intelligence that are important to highlight here. When writing reports, psychologists should indicate how they assessed intelligence, including modifications made to standardized tests and why they were made. They should also indicate when test results should be interpreted with caution. It is important to note that indicating these modifications and cautionary warnings is not a sign of weakness—it is an indication of a thoughtful, sensitive, and professional approach to analysis of assessment data. Psychologists frequently use a template to report the results of intelligence tests, reporting the results of every scale and subscale. Although this approach is generally problematic because of the variable reliability of subtests and because most readers of reports do not comprehend this type of reporting (Groth-Marnot, 2009), it is especially problematic in the case of CLD children and adolescents. Psychologists should consider their degree of confidence in scores, and if not confident about them, should resist the pressure to report them, substituting ranges and qualitative descriptions of functioning. For school psychologists this may cause some tension because school administrators are often used to getting scores, and may disparage the assessment or not agree to appropriate special needs education because they are not provided. This implies that psychologists have an educational role to play.

130

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

CONCLUSION Administering and scoring IQ tests are relatively easy tasks. As previously discussed, the challenge for psychologists is to use their strong background in developmental psychology, developmental psychopathology, and knowledge and sensitivity about language and cultural differences to synthesize the data from the family, school and community contexts, formal and informal tests, observations, interviews, and dynamic assessments to develop a formulation that appropriately reflects the child’s abilities. A cautious and judicious approach to the assessment of intelligence is important in relation to all children but is especially critical with regard to CLD children. The consequences of identifying a child as having an intellectual disability when that is not the case can be detrimental in terms of teacher and parent expectations, inappropriate school placement and programming, and the child’s self-concept.

NOTES 1. As discussed in Chapter 7, the DSM-5 has removed the requirement to establish a discrepancy between intelligence and achievement to qualify for a learning disability diagnosis, though discrepancy formulae continue to be used in the identification process (Scanlon, 2013). 2. Because of the severity of impairment, it is easier to separate cultural and linguistic issues from moderate, severe, and profound intellectual disability than from mild intellectual disability.

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

131

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE To Do

Not to Do

Consider whether the assessment is necessary or timely.

Start assessments with standardized IQ tests.

Give cognitive tests after assessing OLP and academic skills.

Confine assessment of intelligence to scores on standardized IQ tests.

Take time to develop rapport and trust.

Give credence to results that you believe are not valid for the child.

Tell children why they should try hard.

Report scores that are not valid for the child.

Select and interpret tests on the basis of Report scores with high linguistic and cultural degree of linguistic and cultural loading. loading as measuring intelligence. Look for signs of average or near average ability. Use dynamic assessment techniques and incorporate response to intervention in interpretation of data. Assess adaptive behavior. Consider skills and talents not measured by standardized intelligence tests. Interpret data flexibly and with deep conceptual knowledge.

Diagnose a mild intellectual disability solely on the basis of scores on standardized IQ tests.

132

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 6.1 Questions to Consider When Assessing Intelligence Initial Decision Making 1. Why might assessing intelligence be necessary? 2. Is it appropriate to administer a standardized individual intelligence test? a. Does the child come from a cultural group where he or she has been exposed to the types of problem-solving tasks measured on standardized IQ tests? b. How biased is the test that is selected in relation to the child’s culture? 3. What other approaches to assessing intelligence should I consider? a. Modifying administration of standardized tests b. Dynamic assessment c. Ecological assessment 4. What other sources of information should I consider? a. Informants to interview b. Classroom observations c. Behaviors in play sessions including computer games Contextual Information for Interpreting Assessment Results

Home/Family Environment 1. How many years has the child been in the immigrant-receiving country? 2. For immigrants, to what extent do the parents need to learn the societal language in order to function in their community, and do they make an effort to do so? 3. For young children in remote aboriginal communities, to what extent are they exposed to the dominant or official societal language? 4. Do the parents speak the societal language? How well? 5. Are the parents literate and do they model literacy-related activities either in the L1 or L2? 6. Do parents provide support for school-related activities (e.g., time and place to study at home or in the library, excursions in the community that broaden the child’s perspective)? 7. Are siblings experiencing learning difficulties? 8. Has the child been schooled previously? What was the quality of education? 9. Has the child previously been exposed to trauma?

School and Community Environments 1. Are there resources in the community (e.g., church, mosque, community center, elders) to support academic learning and cultural knowledge? 2. Does the child have access to after-school tutoring through community organizations or through tutors hired by parents? 3. Does the child receive high-quality support in learning the societal language at school? 4. Does the child receive high-quality support in learning the heritage language at school or in the community? 5. Does the child receive classroom accommodations that meet learning and socialemotional needs? (continued )

6. ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

133

Table 6.1 Questions to Consider When Assessing Intelligence (continued) Data Interpretation 1. Was rapport achieved? 2. Does the child have appropriate test-taking strategies? 3. Does the child understand the purpose of testing and the need to make an effort? 4. Does the child respond to the requirement of answering questions that are not in context or doing tasks that may seemingly have no purpose? 5. Was the child functioning at his or her best during the test session (fatigue, anxiety, attention)? 6. To what extent are various tests and subtests linguistically and culturally loaded? 7. Did the child understand instructions, even on nonverbal tests? 8. Does the child score in the low average or average range on any test components? 9. How should I interpret one or two higher scores in the context of mainly low average or below average scores? 10. Are there observable behaviors (e.g., adaptive behaviors, technology skills) that show evidence of average or above average problem solving? 11. How do I interpret patterns of strengths and weaknesses? 12. Has the child been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome or neurological disorder that is typically associated with an intellectual disability? 13. Should the child be referred for a neurological or genetic assessment? Reporting Results 1. Should I report on how I modified test administration (e.g., testing the limits) or conducted dynamic assessments? 2. Should I provide qualifications as to why results should be interpreted with caution? 3. Should I report test and subtest scores (e.g., percentiles) or ranges (e.g., average, low average)? 4. Should I report descriptive observations of behavior and learning on dynamic assessment tasks? 5. Should I avoid reporting specific scores because I believe that they might be misinterpreted by school administrators who would prematurely or erroneously classify a child as having an intellectual disability and place him or her in a segregated special education setting? L1, first language; L2, second language.

Assessment of Academic Achievement CHAPTER 7:

Myth: Standardized tests of academic achievement are not valid for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents who study in their second language (L2) until they have been in the immigrant-receiving country for at least 5 years. Fact: A combination of standardized achievement tests, curriculum-based measurement, interviews, and observational methods can be used in the context of a dynamic assessment of academic achievement of these CLD children and adolescents. It is not what test you give but how you interpret the data that you collect that matters.

A

ssessment of academic achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics is a crucial part of most assessments of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents. In the first section of this chapter, we discuss general issues that psychologists and other practitioners need to consider, including timing of the assessment in the second language (L2), cultural knowledge and bias, impact of oral language proficiency (OLP) on performance, and previous experience with the types of achievement testing done in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) immigrant-receiving countries. These issues may have different types of impact on assessment of reading, writing, and mathematics; require that psychologists use a variety of assessment approaches; and require that they be sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences in interpreting assessment data. The second section of the chapter is devoted to specific academic assessment strategies, and the third section to interpretation of assessment results. The final section of the chapter is a discussion of the diagnosis of learning disabilities (LDs). In this section, we analyze the strengths and problems associated with using discrepancy definitions, response to intervention (RTI), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) and show how the research on

136

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

typical development and differentiating L2 and LD discussed in Chapter 3 can be applied. All six case studies presented in the Appendix illustrate aspects of the assessment of academic achievement.

GENERAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER Time of Assessment in the L2 As is the case with all children, their age and stage of development partially dictate the questions that psychologists ask when assessing their academic achievement. Thus, for younger children, the focus is on basic skills such as word recognition and pseudoword decoding, whereas for older children and adolescents the focus is on reading comprehension and writing, unless the basic mechanics of wordlevel reading skills have not been developed. As discussed in Chapter 5, assessment of achievement of skills in the first language (L1) is best done very soon after children arrive in the immigrant-receiving country. In L2, assessment of accurate word reading and pseudoword decoding can be accomplished 1 to 2 years after arrival as long as the caveats discussed in Chapter 3 regarding normal development of L2 learners are taken into account when interpreting results. Reading comprehension and writing are more complex, take a long time to develop, and are more dependent on OLP; therefore, determining valid timing is imprecise. Interpretation of the results of assessment will also likely be affected by children’s previous schooling experiences, age of arrival in the immigrant-receiving country, exposure to the L2 prior to immigration, and opportunities to learn the L2. With regard to math, as discussed in the following text, it depends on the area of math assessed (i.e., calculation vs. solving word problems), and the quality of the math instruction the student received prior to immigration.

Cultural Bias/Knowledge As is the case with intelligence testing, psychologists should be sensitive to cultural bias embedded in the assessment instruments. For example, CLD children may not be familiar with casinos and gambling, and therefore find it difficult to solve math word problems involving probability estimates that are embedded in a gambling scenario. Similarly, CLD children may find it difficult to write a story about a camping trip if they have never gone on a trip outside the urban neighborhood they live in. Some children and adolescents in remote communities may not be familiar with contexts involving urban environments and rural or small town life. Brazilian street children, however, are typically able to solve problems involving proportions when they are contextualized as selling items on the street, but not when they are asked to address the same mathematical concepts in the context of a paper-and-pencil task (Nunes, Schliemann, & Carraher, 1993).

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

137

Consequently, contextualizing assessment to explore conceptual knowledge and skills embedded in familiar contexts may provide a more accurate evaluation.

Language Proficiency Another challenge for assessment of CLD children is that their delays in developing OLP in the L2 may hinder their ability to show what they actually know and what they have learned in their country of origin. As we elaborate in the following text, the challenge of not being sufficiently familiar with the language of school and learning is not restricted to school subjects such as literature or social science; it prevails in subtle ways in scientific subjects such as math or physics (see Cummins, 2012, for review).

Familiarity With Testing Formats CLD children and youth may not have experience with the variety of testing formats and types of task instructions that are common in the immigrant-receiving country. Some refugee children may have had limited schooling and not been exposed to tests and exams. Other children may be used to tests that demand memorization of facts but may find tests with open-ended questions that require critical analysis, problem solving, and creativity to be extremely challenging. They also may not be familiar with the types of instructions given on tests or test formats such as multiple-choice, and therefore benefit from adaptation. Fairbairn (2006) found that English-language learning (ELL) students benefited from question types that involved yes/no and multiple-choice formats, especially when they were enhanced with linguistic simplification and visual support (e.g., pictures, graphics).

Adaptive Academic Skills Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and youth who come from Third World countries, especially if they have lived in remote villages or refugee camps, may not have acquired some basic adaptive academic skills needed to function in their new communities. The same may be true of aboriginal youth moving from remote communities to urban centers in countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia, Finland, and New Zealand. With regard to reading, they need to quickly acquire the sight vocabulary required to understand safety information (e.g., danger, poison), use public transit, identify items in grocery stores, order food, and so on. In math, time and money concepts and skills are very important. In some languages, time concepts are fluid and the terms to describe time are less precise than in European languages (Mbiti, 1990). Understanding basic time and money concepts and acquiring skills to measure

138

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

and read the time and use currency are crucial. It is important to be aware that skills that are adaptive in the society of the immigrant-receiving country may not be helpful in other cultural environments, and that children and adolescents who lack some important adaptive skills for the immigrant-receiving society may have skills that are not demanded there but are important in the country of origin (Sternberg, 2005).

Immigration Policies and Immigrant Populations in OECD Countries As described in Chapter 2, it is important to be mindful of data from studies showing that the reading and mathematics achievement of adolescent immigrants varies across OECD countries (OECD, 2010c). These studies suggest that in some countries (e.g., Canada, Australia) the achievement of immigrant adolescents is at par with or higher than that of L1 adolescents born in those countries, whereas in other OECD countries (e.g., Germany, Norway, Sweden) immigrant adolescents’ performance is significantly below that of their L1 counterparts. Countries with higher academic achievement among immigrant adolescents often have selective immigration policies that favor families with higher parental education. The higher socioeconomic status (SES) of immigrants in these countries is likely associated with higher levels of social capital.

The School and Classroom Environment Some immigrant and most refugee children and adolescents have limited or interrupted schooling prior to arrival in the immigrant-receiving country (e.g., Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011), and many immigrants and refugees have had several moves prior to settling in one house and one school in the immigrantreceiving country. Given the importance of academic engaged time in enhancing achievement (e.g., Greenwood, 1991), limited or interrupted schooling may interfere with progress in acquiring academic skills. The school and classroom environment and teacher attitudes may also play a role in enhancing or limiting academic achievement gains of CLD children and adolescents. In schools where there is a high proportion of immigrant students who speak the same L1, there may be fewer opportunities and less incentive to learn the L2 (Thoreau & Liebig, 2012). Schools also provide varying levels of support for CLD students, including access to intensive L2 instruction, providing buddies, mentors, and peer or cross-age tutors, and giving parents instrumental supports such as referrals to settlement organizations. Classrooms also vary in their support for acquisition of OLP. In classrooms where students mainly work independently on worksheets, students may have less opportunity to access rich meaningful oral language than in classrooms that use a constructivist approach. In constructivist classrooms, children are exposed to oral language in the context of activities with concrete materials, interaction with other students, and

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

139

teacher scaffolding (Southwest Education Development Laboratory; SEDL, 1995). Classrooms also vary in the explicit teaching of vocabulary, which has been found to enhance the vocabulary acquisition of children who have low levels of OLP in comparison to peers (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Spada & Tomita, 2010). Teacher attitudes toward adapting instruction for children with a variety of special needs are associated with their practices and with the academic achievement gains of their students (e.g., Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Teachers’ beliefs that student learning difficulties are a result of an interaction between student characteristics and the instructional environment, and that teachers have a responsibility to adapt instruction accordingly, are associated with teachers collaborating with others to identify and implement instructional strategies that are helpful for their students, adapting instruction, and cognitively engaging students with special educational needs. Furthermore, teachers are likely to hold these positive attitudes when they are shared by the school administration and they become the school norm. Teacher attitudes may play a more specific role in relation to CLD students. Love and Kruger (2005) examined the association between teacher attitudes and student reading and math achievement in urban elementary schools with a predominantly African American population in the United States. They found that teachers whose students were more successful academically had high expectations—they believed that every student can be successful at something and that they can reach every student. These effective teachers believed that it was their role to disseminate knowledge to students and teach explicitly, but also reported that they used group work judiciously in their classrooms. They endeavored to collaborate with parents. They were also highly committed to teaching CLD students and those from low-SES communities, and saw it as their way of contributing to society.

SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING READING AND WRITING The Role of OLP in the Assessment of Literacy Skills As discussed in Chapter 3, it is important to consider the role of OLP in achieving acceptable word-level skills such as sight word recognition, reading decoding, and spelling, and in achieving text-level skills such as reading with fluency, reading comprehension, and writing. With appropriate instruction and exposure, typically developing ELL children who begin school in the primary grades can acquire accuracy in L2 word reading, decoding, and spelling skills in the absence of proficiency in the L2, even when their L1 has a different alphabet and spelling rules (Geva, 2006). However, text-based reading skills, including reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing, are highly related to various aspects of language proficiency such as academic vocabulary and morphosyntax

140

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

skills. This means that children learning in their L2 are likely to perform at a lower level on text-reading fluency, timed and untimed reading comprehension, and writing evaluations than their counterparts who are learning in their L1, even when their word-based reading skills are at par (Geva, 2006). Both reading comprehension and writing are complex, demanding tasks, and, as discussed in Chapter 3, being proficient in these literacy skills depends on the orchestration of various cognitive, language, strategic, and cultural components. As will be discussed further in the following text, this makes the task of differentiating LDs in reading comprehension and writing in CLD children challenging; psychologists need to use various complementary approaches to tease apart lowered performance that may be attributed to limited exposure to relevant cultural or linguistic knowledge, from lowered performance that may also reflect cognitive processing difficulties.

Relevant Background Knowledge There are myriad differences in knowledge of culture-based symbols that may affect the ability of CLD children to perform well on achievement tests, especially those involving higher-level conceptual, critical, and interpretive skills. These differences may include comfort with expressions of creativity that may be different from one’s culture of origin; being able to understand, recognize, and interpret metaphors and other cultural allusions; and familiarity with text genres and ways of building an argument (Rydland, Aukrust, & Fulland, 2012). For example, individuals who are unfamiliar with psychoanalytic theory may have difficulty in interpreting works of art coming from traditions that draw heavily on psychoanalytic concepts. Likewise, much of Western literature draws heavily on European-based cultural and religious concepts that may not be meaningful to adolescents who come from other backgrounds, who in turn may be familiar with cultural concepts embedded in their culture of origin. Psychologists should be mindful of the extent to which performance on achievement tests may be interpreted as reflecting inadequate familiarity with the cultural symbols and background knowledge of the dominant culture, rather than an underlying difficulty in doing the task.

SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING MATHEMATICS The Role of OLP and Cultural Knowledge in the Assessment of Math Skills Several cognitive processes are associated with mathematics achievement deficits such as working memory, processing speed, and rapid automatized naming of numbers and letters (Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent, & Numtee, 2007; Geary, Hoard, & Nugent, 2012). These cognitive processes are not likely to differentially

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

141

affect math achievement in L1 and L2 learners. On the other hand, although on the surface it might seem that CLD children and adolescents would not be differentially impacted in their mathematics achievement because of a belief that math skills are less reliant on OLP, there is evidence that this is not the case. Mathematics is a language system and demands language proficiency to acquire new skills (Geary, 2004; Goodstein, 1981). There are spatial, time, and quantitative words and concepts that are essential for comprehending instructions and engaging in higher-level problem solving. For example, many aboriginal children in the primary grades from a remote community in Canada, who were assessed through our clinic, did not know the meaning of simple spatial (e.g., top, bottom, under) or quantitative (e.g., more, less) concepts either in English or in their native Ojibwe. It was therefore challenging to determine whether they had developed conservation of number because they did not understand questions such as Are there more candies, less candies, or the same number of candies? Similarly, CLD children who do not know the meaning of words such as share, altogether, or group will not comprehend math problems that involve these words. Likewise, the syntax of word problems (e.g., passive voice; “if and only if” formulations) may be confusing for some children due to their heavy language demands. As demonstrated in a study by Martiniello (2009), many aspects of language functioning affect word problem solving when children are working in their L2, including grammatical and lexical complexity. Martiniello defined grammatical complexity as sentences with embedded clauses and the passive voice that need to be interpreted to understand the word problem, and lexical complexity as nonmathematical vocabulary that occurs infrequently in text, cannot be understood from the context, and is required to solve the problem. ELL students in Grade 4 living in the United States and taking a standardized state math test had more difficulty on items that were more grammatically and lexically complex, but their performance improved when they were provided with visual schematic representations of the problems. In spite of these challenges, Guglielmi (2012) found that when immigrant ELL children had some schooling in their native language in their country of origin, their math and science performance was higher than when they were educated solely in the United States. Guglielmi interpreted this finding as suggesting that children may find it challenging at first to understand mathematical and scientific concepts that are taught in their L2, due to their vocabulary levels and challenges with receptive language fluency. Moreover, he also pointed out that immigrant children who had schooling in certain countries in their L1 may have been exposed to a more advanced and better-sequenced math curriculum than children educated in the United States, as indicated by math scores in some Asian countries such as China and Korea on international math tests (Garnett, Adamuti-Trache, & Ungerleider, 2008). The implication of these findings is that the country of origin and time of immigration should be considered when interpreting children’s results on math achievement tests.

142

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Math Curriculum Differences Due to the differences in the sequencing of curricula in different jurisdictions, children who are immigrants or refugees may have acquired concepts that children in the immigrant-receiving country do not know, as well as have gaps in other concepts. Although most countries use metric measurement, a few countries including the United States use the Imperial system. Children immigrating to the United States may be unaware of this system. Furthermore, many academic achievement tests used in English speaking countries where metric measurement is taught were developed and normed in the United States. Some children who attend ELL classes may miss math instruction and therefore not progress in their math skills. There also are differences in the orthographic symbols used to denote various operations (e.g., division sign) that may confuse some CLD children, because they are different from what they learned in their country of origin. Even simple words may be confusing. For example, children who are educated in the British educational system may use words such as sums instead of addition and thus be confused by terms on tests given in North America, even though they speak English fluently.

SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR ASSESSMENT OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTION According to Zelazo and Carson (2012, p. 1), executive function (EF) “refers to the deliberate, top-down neurocognitive processes involved in the conscious, goaldirected control of thought, action, and emotion processes that include cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory.” There are several components of EF including focusing attention, self-regulation and impulse control, working memory, shifting, initiating activities, planning, organizing, using feedback, and selecting effective strategies for learning and problem solving (Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2012). Psychologists use both performance-based tasks such as the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS; Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001) and parent and teacher rating scales such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) to assess EF. As discussed by Toplak et al. (2012) performance-based measures assess EF in highly controlled conditions and may not be correlated with actual function in problem-solving contexts such as classrooms. Rating scale measures, on the other hand, are intended to be ecologically valid assessments of problem solving in everyday situations such as classrooms. Toplak et al. (2012) found that the median correlation between scores on performance and rating scale measures was 0.19, suggesting that they are fundamentally different tasks. Given their ecological validity, rating scales are more likely to have clinical utility and be helpful in understanding academic achievement difficulties. Nevertheless, due to the linguistic and cultural factors discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, parents may

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

143

not be able to use EF rating scales to report on their children’s functioning in this area. Although the scales may be appropriate for teachers to complete, they may view students as having inadequate EF abilities when the problem is that the students do not have the language background or basic prerequisite skills to do the tasks, and as a result do not seem attentive, motivated, or organized. Wiener (1986) developed a semi-structured learning strategies interview for the purpose of analyzing adolescent students’ strategies for studying, writing tests and exams, getting information from a textbook, and note-making that is useful for CLD adolescents who have acquired basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). An adapted and updated version of this interview is provided in Table 7.1. The conceptual framework for the Learning Strategies Interview is derived from several theoretical perspectives: Scardamalia and Bereiter’s concept of using the child as a coinvestigator; Deshler and his colleagues’ research on learning strategies; Meltzer’s work on teaching specific EFs such as getting started, planning and organizing work, and self-monitoring in the context of classroom tasks; and Hayes and Flower’s (1987) structure of the writing model. Scardamalia, Bereiter, and Filion (1981) proposed that children should be coinvestigators in assessments in order to identify the strategies they use to learn and whether those strategies are adaptive. Consequently, it is important to understand the demands of the classroom (including how the teacher teaches and the method of evaluation) in each academic course from the student’s perspective, examine course materials, and ask probing questions about the strategies used to access the materials. At the outset of the interview, students are asked to provide the interviewer with the names of their courses. The interviewer then asks them to describe how the teacher teaches in each course, and how the teacher marks them. The interviewer probes by asking questions about writing on the board, copying demands, whether there is instruction that involves the use of computers and Internet resources, whether the teacher just talks or asks questions, whether the student understands what the teacher is saying, whether there is group work, and so on. Deshler and his colleagues (Deshler, Alley, Warner, & Schumaker, 1981; Deshler, Schumaker, Lenz, & Ellis, 1984) indicated that it is important for students to have adaptive strategies to get information from text, make notes that are useful for studying, study and write tests, and write essays and research reports. Consequently, the Learning Strategies Interview covers all of these areas. The interviewing in each area typically begins with an open-ended question (e.g., Tell me how you study) and then proceeds to specific probes (e.g., Where do you study? Do you listen to music when you study? How long can you study before you take a break?). The probes are in part based on Meltzer’s (Meltzer & Krishnan, 2007) EF framework that focuses on students’ ability to plan their time and their course outputs, organize their materials, prioritize their work, shift tasks when needed, memorize efficiently, and self-monitor. The questions that underlie the written output section of the interview are based on Hayes and Flower’s (1987)

144

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Structure of the Writing Model. This model proposes that it is important to consider the task environment for writing (e.g., genre, teacher guidelines, and motivating cues), students’ stored writing plans, interest in and understanding of the topic, knowledge and use of research methods, strategies for getting ideas onto paper/computer, and revising/editing. Specific questions are posed for each of these components. The interview protocol described by Wiener (1986) was modified in two ways as shown in Table 7.1. First, the level of vocabulary was adjusted and terms explained more explicitly so that the questions would be easier for L2 adolescents to understand. Second, specific questions were added in relation to language comprehension and expression, use of the Internet for research purposes, and assistive technology. Two case studies in the Appendix (Khalil—Case Study 4 and Changgun/Brandon—Case Study 5) illustrate the use of this interview.

ASSESSMENT APPROACHES Psychologists typically use standardized norm-referenced tests to assess academic achievement of children and adolescents. This approach may be valid for children who have been in the immigrant-receiving country since they began their schooling and who have integrated into the society of the host country. With many CLD children and adolescents, however, it may be important to use other approaches such as interviewing, observation, and dynamic assessment, depending on the objectives of the assessment and the OLP of the child being assessed. The approaches discussed in the following section are complementary in that psychologists might use more than one of these to assess achievement in specific children.

Standardized Achievement Tests Psychologists typically assess academic achievement using broad-band standardized achievement tests such as the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (Wechsler, 2009), the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement—Third Edition (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001/2007), and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement—Second Edition (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). These tests have strong psychometric properties, and provide scores that give an indication of how children are functioning in comparison with children educated in the United States. Some of these tests also have versions that are modified for use and normed in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Standardized academic achievement tests often do not focus sufficiently on functional academic skills (e.g., sign full name, count money, and make change). Thus, it is often helpful to use standardized functional achievement tests such as the Kaufman Functional Academic Skills Test (K-FAST; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1994).

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

145

There are several problems with the use of standardized achievement tests with some CLD children and adolescents. First, as previously discussed, the norms of these tests may be inappropriate for some of these students due to interrupted or limited schooling and the demands for cultural knowledge. Second, L2 children may not understand the instructions on these tests due to poorly developed OLP. Third, they may not be familiar with the formats used on standardized tests. Fourth, for older children and adolescents whose academic functioning is well below average (e.g., a 15-year-old nonreader), these tests do not have a sufficient floor to assess their skills (e.g., letters of the alphabet/letter sound correspondences; number conservation) as items assessing these early skills are typically supposed to be given only to younger children. Fifth, L2 children may need more time to complete timed standardized achievement tests because they may read less fluently and spend more time on addressing unfamiliar vocabulary or grammatical structures. Timed tests may underestimate what they actually know. These problems are described in the Diego (Appendix Case Study 3), Khalil (Appendix Case Study 4), and Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6) case studies. It is important to note that while most OECD immigrant-receiving countries have standardized group administered achievement tests that assess academic achievement of all of the students in that country at specific points in time (Morris, 2011; National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2010), individual, standardized, norm-referenced achievement tests that are created for use in psychological or psycho-educational assessments are not available in all languages and many countries do not have national norms for these tests. Psychologists in these countries sometimes adapt the group tests for individual administration. When psychologists need to deviate from the standardized instructions of the tests due to these problems, the scores that are obtained are no longer valid. Because of these issues, assessment of academic achievement of CLD children and adolescents should also include error analyses that may reveal the aspects of the tasks that they can and cannot do, classroom observation, and observation of student functioning on informal functional tasks, interviewing, and dynamic assessment.

Observational Techniques Classroom observation and examining report cards and portfolios of children’s work are helpful approaches for assessing CLD students’ academic achievement. In the case of newcomers, report cards from their country of origin might indicate whether they had achievement difficulties in their L1. Portfolios of their work can be compared to portfolios of average or above average achieving children from similar backgrounds. This approach is especially useful in remote aboriginal communities where the portfolios from teacher-nominated average and above average achievers may be the only gauge of whether the child’s

146

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

functioning is normative. Error analyses can be done on the work displayed in the portfolios. Observational techniques may be used to assess adaptive academic skills in older children and adolescents. For example, one method to determine whether children or adolescents have acquired basic money skills is to put coins of several denominations on the table and ask them to count the coins. If they are able to do this, it is important to note the strategies they use (e.g., starting with the coin with the highest denomination). If they are not able to accomplish the counting task, psychologists should move down the hierarchy of skills to determine whether they know the value of each coin, whether they can count coins by 5, 10, and 25 in the case of the dollar or 5, 10, 20, and 50 in the case of the euro, or whether they can overcome the physical size of the coin and know that a smaller coin might still be more valuable than a larger one. A trip to a supermarket, cafeteria, or a fast-food restaurant may give information about whether the student can read packaging or simple menus, figure out what the best price is, count money, and so on. In cities where this is relevant, traveling on public transit will also provide important information. If a student brings in a cell phone, MP3-player, tablet, or Smart Phone, observe what they are able to do with it and whether they can troubleshoot. Psychologists might observe whether students can navigate a computer keyboard, write an e-mail to a friend, use social media, write text messages, and use assistive technology in their L1 or the societal language. These types of observations were helpful when assessing Diego’s (Appendix Case Study 3) and Aisha’s (Case Study 6) functional academic skills. As discussed earlier, it is important to assess teacher practices that are associated with achievement of students with learning difficulties and CLD students. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008) is a standardized behavioral rating scale that has solid psychometric properties and is based on research indicating the characteristics of effective classrooms that promote academic achievement. The CLASS has three overall domains and several subscales: Emotional Support (positive and negative climate, teacher sensitivity, respect for student perspectives), Classroom Organization (behavior management, productivity, instructional learning formats), and Instructional Support (concept development, quality of feedback, language modeling). López (2012) found that reading achievement of ELLs (mainly Hispanic) in an urban school district in the United States was predicted by their teachers’ respect for their students’ perspectives and instructional support. Respect for student perspectives is measured by items assessing teachers’ incorporating student ideas, showing flexibility, and providing opportunities for leadership. Instructional support involves fostering concept development by applying lessons to real-life situations and asking questions that require analysis and reasoning, providing assistance and feedback, and modeling language by repeating, extending, and elaborating on student utterances. The CLASS can be used in the context of consulting with teachers by providing feedback to them on the behavioral

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

147

observations and suggesting directions they might take to enhance the achievement of CLD children.

Interviews Parents and other caregivers should be interviewed about the achievement of CLD children. Parents may indicate that their children were struggling academically prior to immigration. Older children and adolescents may also be able to provide this information. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, it is helpful to learn whether the parents recognize that their children have academic difficulties and to determine their attributions for their children’s academic failure. If the parents are aware that there are academic difficulties, do they attribute them to insufficient effort, being incapable, having insufficiently developed L2 skills, or problems with the quality of the education system of the immigrant-receiving country? It is important to interview classroom teachers and L2 teachers, especially if it is not feasible to do classroom observations due to financial or other constraints. Classroom teachers provide essential information regarding children’s classroom functioning in relation to other students. L2 teachers usually have a natural normative group of other immigrants who came to the immigrantreceiving country at the same time, and often from the same country. Their opinion on whether children who are being assessed have made progress similar to their peers is therefore valuable. In schools where there are many immigrant children, classroom teachers may also have a sense about the typical progress these children make. When interviewing teachers, it is important to assess their attitudes to CLD children as well as to children with LDs and other special educational needs, as research has demonstrated that their attitudes are linked to their teaching practices and student achievement (e.g., Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Psychologists should listen for statements that indicate whether a teacher is willing to provide instructional supports. Teachers who are likely to do so indicate that they feel responsible for their students’ performance and want to know how they might adapt instruction to help them. They know that they should use techniques to develop language and should cognitively engage the students, but may be struggling to actually do so. They are eager to communicate with psychologists and other consultants and collaborate with parents. They are also sensitive and respectful of their students’ perspectives. It is important to interview children and adolescents about their experiences in their classrooms and their strengths and challenges with learning. The Classroom Demands section of the Learning Strategies Interview described previously and in Table 8.1 can be used with most students who are 9 years old or older. The remaining sections of the interviews are more appropriate for students who are 13 years of age or older.

148

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Dynamic Assessment As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 and described in all six case studies in the Appendix, dynamic assessment is an approach that assesses whether students make significant changes when they are provided with feedback on tasks that increase in difficulty (Swanson & Lussier, 2001). With regard to assessment of academic achievement, psychologists may use various methods to teach a concept or skill and observe whether the student responds differentially to this instruction. Table 7.2 is an observational checklist that psychologists can use to observe student preferences for presentation and response mode, the strategies they use, and response problems. Psychologists might observe whether the student learns better when information is presented visually through a diagram, or verbally, in oral versus written form, or through spaced practice versus massed practice. Psychologists can also assess the OLP of the CLD student (using the Oral Language Checklist provided in Chapter 5, Table 5.4) and how the student responds when the language is too demanding. For example: Does the child ask what words mean, or does the child simply sit passively and not respond? If it is necessary to explain what the words mean, does the child understand a verbal definition or is it necessary to use gestures or drawings? It is important to observe the degree to which concrete examples or manipulatives are needed to understand a concept, the pace of instruction that is necessary (e.g., slow pace to enhance understanding of verbal concepts vs. quick pace to maintain attention), and how much repetition of information is needed for retention. Some students learn best when given explicit instruction whereas others learn and retain concepts by responding to guided questioning that facilitates understanding. Students may also require different amounts of scaffolding in the form of questions that guide their learning, prompts, and examples. Psychologists might also systematically vary the response mode to determine whether that leads to a differential display of knowledge or skills. Some students respond better when asked to give a response orally rather than in writing, and vice versa. Some have challenges with expressing ideas but can recognize the correct answer when a simple multiple-choice format (e.g., true/ false, matching) is given. As previously noted, most students who have not acquired cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) have challenges with questions that are grammatically and lexically complex (Fairbairn, 2006; Martiniello, 2009). Some students are able to show their knowledge when they are given a worksheet, but others are more responsive to an activity (e.g., construction task, role-play, game) or when they are given an opportunity to respond using a computer or tablet. Psychologists should observe the strategies that CLD children use to learn new material and response problems. Questions that psychologists should ask themselves include whether the student uses active approaches or is passive.

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

149

If active, does he or she use rehearsal, mnemonics, or imagery? Does he or she relate new information or skills to previously learned material? Does he or she ask for help? Does he or she self-monitor? It is also important to observe response problems such as slow rate of response, providing circuitous answers due to not having the vocabulary to express ideas, impulsivity, low frustration tolerance, short attention span, anxiety, and constant need for reinforcement. These response problems are described in the Diego (Appendix Case Study 3) and Khalil (Appendix Case Study 4) case studies in the Appendix. RTI is a specific type of dynamic assessment that has been discussed extensively in the literature on students with LD. It is also an approach to diagnosis and intervention that has many advantages for CLD students. If a student has not responded to instruction at a level of other students in the regular education class (Tier one), placement in an intensive program for L2 students would be warranted (Tier two). If the student does not respond to this intervention in terms of acquiring language and reading skills at the same level as L2 peers who came at about the same time, individualized intervention in relevant oral language, literacy, and numeracy skills is required (Tier three; Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater, & Cirino, 2006). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Hamlett, 2003) is typically used to assess RTI. These measures are brief standardized curriculum-referenced timed probes, measuring skills that are highly correlated with progress in reading, writing, and math. Aimsweb (AIMSweb.com), for example, provides 10 equivalent probes at each grade level from kindergarten through Grade 8, including oral-reading fluency, spelling from dictation, math calculation, and writing a story using a story starter. The instructions for most published CBM probes state that the probes for a specific grade level should be given to students in that grade. In some cases, however, CLD students are not able to do any of the tasks at the grade that is commensurate to their age. For those students, probes at a lower grade level should be given. Psychologists seeking more specific guidelines on implementation of curriculum-based measurement should read The ABCs of CBM: A Practical Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007).

INTERPRETATION OF ACHIEVEMENT DATA Interpretation of achievement data involves a sophisticated understanding of child and adolescent development of skills, the learning challenges faced by L2 learners and children and adolescents with LD, and the ecology of schools and classrooms. As discussed in Chapter 3, CLD children who begin their schooling in the host country in Grade 1 or earlier typically develop word-level reading skills, spelling skills, and written expression skills including grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and overall organization at a level that is

150

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

commensurate with their native-born peers within a year (see Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006; Geva, 2006 for reviews) though this will not typically be the case for L2 children who arrive when they are older. On the other hand, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and the quality of vocabulary in written expression are highly associated with OLP, and L2 children’s achievement on these aspects of literacy development is typically lower than their native born classmates, even as late as Grade 6 (Farnia & Geva, 2011; Jean & Geva, 2009; Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). Although ideally the literacy and language gap between students studying in their L1 and those studying in their L2 should substantially reduce over time when quality education and appropriate supports are in place, it does not fully close, and in fact is less likely to close the older they are when they arrive. Consequently, as suggested by Cummins (2012), it would be reasonable to expect that a typically developing L2 student might have low–average achievement scores in reading comprehension and written expression in the L2 several years after arrival in the immigrant-receiving country. In the same vein and as previously discussed, with regard to math, L2 students often have ongoing challenges with word problem solving and math and science concepts, especially when questions are grammatically or lexically complex (Martiniello, 2009). The picture in math is muddy, however, because, as mentioned earlier, some immigrant students who studied math in their country of origin achieve at higher levels than students who obtained all of their schooling in the United States (Garnett et al., 2008; Guglielmi, 2012) and because, due to differences in immigration policies, the educational level of immigrant parents may be higher than in the general population (OECD, 2006). With a few exceptions, to date, the typical development over time of L2 language and literacy skills of children and adolescents who arrive in the immigrant-receiving country after Grade 1 has not been as clearly delineated. Although these students acquire BICS relatively quickly, this is not sufficient for progress in school (Cummins, 2012). As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, it takes many years for CALP to be established, and the language gap is less likely to close the older the children are when they immigrate to their new country (Garnett, 2010; OECD, 2010c). There is some evidence that the language gap between students learning in their L1 and those learning in their L2 increases for children who immigrated when they were older, and this gap becomes particularly concerning when they arrive in the immigrant-receiving country after Grade 5 (Pasquarella, Gottardo, & Grant, 2012). As discussed in Chapter 3, one of the issues to consider with L2 children who were schooled elsewhere before their arrival is the potential for transfer of skills from their L1. Thus, if the L1 has an orthography, grammatical structures, or root words that are similar to the L2 (e.g., as is the case for ELLs whose home language is Spanish or French), transfer from L1 would likely be greater than if the language of origin was quite different (e.g., Mandarin or Amharic). Likewise, if they developed good comprehension

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

151

strategies in their L1 in the country of origin they should be able to transfer these strategies and use them in the L2. Using an ecological model, assessment data should be interpreted in light of the students’ overall context. Students who had interrupted or inadequate schooling in their country of origin, and who might have moved several times in the immigrant-receiving country, necessitating attendance at several different schools, would likely have more challenges than students who received a high-quality education in their country of origin. Refugees who lived in refugee camps are often at high risk for academic achievement difficulties (Kim, 2002; Rousseau & Drapeau, 2000), but there is a large variability in their adaptation and achievement that is at least in part associated with cultural factors and parental education. Determining whether siblings are experiencing similar difficulties might be helpful in terms of diagnosing LDs (Cole & Siegel, 2003). As previously discussed, students in classrooms in the immigrant-receiving country with teachers who do not respect their perspectives, do not adapt instruction, and do not strive to develop higher order concepts and develop student vocabulary may also struggle more than their counterparts who are receiving excellent instruction. Interrupted or inadequate schooling is not restricted to the experience of immigrants and refugees. The academic achievement of aboriginals in countries such as Canada is very concerning (Simeone, 2011). Some Aboriginal Canadians live in homogeneous communities that only have fly-in access, attend schools that receive funding at a much lower level than other Canadian students, have less-experienced teachers, and may not have access to secondary school education in their communities. When doing assessments of aboriginal students, and using norm-referenced or criterion-referenced tests, it may be helpful to determine the average performance of students in their communities and interpret performance in relation to that information. Curriculum-based measurement can be helpful for this purpose. The achievement of students who are referred for assessment can then be compared to community norms. As in the general population, family support for learning among CLD students varies considerably. If parents do not speak the dominant language of the society, if they are not educated, if they work more than one minimum wage job to make ends meet, or if they have a very large family, they may not be able to provide the support in the form of helping with schoolwork that many other parents provide (see Diego, Appendix Case Study 3). On the other hand, some immigrant parents value academic achievement to such an extent that they make tremendous sacrifices to provide individual tutoring to their children, pressure their children to work extremely hard, and provide support for learning (see Boris, Appendix Case Study 2). Educational attainment of parents is especially important; parents with low levels of formal education may have difficulty advocating for their children at school, may be unable to support their children with academic learning, and may suggest to their children that they should leave

152

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

school to obtain a job to enhance family finances (Plunkett & Bámaca-Gómez, 2003). Plunkett, Behnke, Sands, and Choi (2009) found that parent engagement in the form of monitoring their teenage children (i.e., knowing where they were and with whom they spent their time) and schoolwork help (i.e., monitoring whether homework is done, making them feel good when they get good grades) was directly associated with academic engagement and indirectly with higher school grades among immigrant adolescents. These findings were especially true for girls. Thus, access to parent support for learning, as well as other forms of community support for learning such as after school programs, should be considered when adolescents are not engaged in school and have low-academic achievement (Cumming, 2012; Pathways to Education, n.d.). Standardized achievement tests generate scores such as standard scores and percentiles that compare students to a sample that represents children, youth, or adults who were born in the country where the test is normed. The normative groups from most of these tests do not substantially reflect the achievement of specific immigrant or refugee groups, or aboriginals. Although establishing community norms may be ideal, it is often not possible. For many students, standard scores and percentiles therefore reflect how the particular student is functioning in relation to the normative group in the immigrant-receiving country. This becomes challenging to interpret if the achievement levels are extremely low, especially for adolescents. For example, if a 16-year-old student obtains a score below the first percentile in reading decoding, it would not be clear whether the student has any functional reading skills. In some cases, it may therefore be helpful to report grade equivalent scores. Knowing that this 16-year-old student is reading at a kindergarten level versus a Grade 2 level suggests that it may be necessary to teach letters of the alphabet, sound symbol correspondence, and high-frequency sight words. Students who are reading at a Grade 2 level typically have these skills. A clear implication of the caveats discussed so far is that automatic reliance on achievement test scores to diagnose LDs and to make placement and intervention decisions is problematic for CLD students. Psychologists need to carefully document what students know/do not know; can do/cannot do. Consequently, it is especially important to do careful error analyses. As discussed in Chapter 3, some errors may be due to negative transfer from the L1 or not having learned a specific skill due to interrupted education or a different curriculum in the country of origin. For example, with regard to negative transfer, students from China may omit definite and indefinite articles (“a,” “the”) and some inflections (e.g., adding an “s” to denote the plural of a word) in their writing because these structures are absent from their L1. Similarly, not comprehending or misusing words that are similar in structure in two languages but actually do not mean the same thing (e.g., the French word librarie means a bookstore, not a library) occurs commonly among L2 learners. These errors should therefore not be construed as evidence of a LD. Sometimes these errors may become fossilized; the

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

153

student continues to make them in his or her L2 even after many years (Selinker & Lakshmanan, 1992).

DEFINING AND DIAGNOSING LDS The DSM-5 (APA, 2013) provides guidelines for the diagnosis of LD. Intelligent use of the DSM-5 classification system for CLD children, however, requires some understanding of the strengths and limitations of previous systems and adaptations that may be required to use it appropriately. Analysis of the way that clinicians, educators, and researchers have defined and diagnosed LDs is beyond the scope of this book (readers are referred to Hale et al., 2010; Tannock, 2013, for a comprehensive discussion). However, key aspects of the diagnosis of LD in terms of definitions provided by major organizations are discussed in relation to CLD children and adolescents below. There are many complexities involved in the diagnosis of LD in CLD children, especially when their L1 is not the societal language. The process is complex, in part because there has not been a strong consensus about the term used to describe the problem and the criteria for deciding that a child or adolescent has a LD (Hale et al., 2010; Tannock, 2013). Although LDs is the term used by the International Academy for Research in LDs (IARLD, n.d.) and by several organizations in the United States and Canada, other terms are commonly used to describe this disorder in different countries where English is the first language, including Specific Learning Difficulty (United Kingdom, Australia) and the terms Dyslexia (reading disability), Dyscalculia (mathematics disability), and Dysgraphia (writing disability). In the United Kingdom, the term LDs is used to describe children who in North America are referred to as having an intellectual disability. The previous editions of the DSM (APA) have used the term Learning Disorders, with the most recent version, the fifth edition (DSM-5; APA, 2013), using the term Specific Learning Disorder (SLD). In this book, we have used, and will continue to use, the term Learning Disabilities, with the acronym LD except when specifically referring to DSM-5. As discussed by Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, and Swanson (2010), diagnosis has two functions: classification and explanation. Classification involves having a set of behavioral criteria or observable characteristics that clinicians use to determine whether a person has a disorder or disability. To be useful in intervention planning, however, diagnoses often involve consideration of explanations of factors that contribute to the problematic behaviors or characteristics. In relation to LD, the observable behaviors and characteristics of concern are below average academic achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics as assessed by individual standardized achievement tests. Assessment of academic achievement is a key aspect of all of the commonly used definitions

154

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

of LDs but there is a general consensus among experts in the field that lowacademic achievement on its own is not sufficient to diagnose an LD (Hale et al., 2010; Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012; Tannock, 2013). Additional factors that have been used by researchers and clinicians to diagnose LD include determining whether there is a discrepancy between intelligence as measured by standardized individual IQ tests and achievement tests, examining RTI, identifying cognitive processing deficits that are associated with the achievement difficulties, assessing family history of learning difficulties, and excluding factors not typically considered to be associated with a LD such as poor instruction and cultural and linguistic differences. Until recently, the method that has been commonly used in the United States is to determine whether there is a discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability (Stuebing et al., 2012). Discrepancy definitions such as that employed by DSM-IV have several problems associated with them, including the overlap between abilities measured on tests of intelligence and achievement, and research findings that show similar patterns of cognitive functioning between children with and without such discrepancies (e.g., Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Francis, Rourke, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 1992; Hale et al., 2010; Siegel, 1989; Stanovich, 1991; Swanson, 2000; Tannock, 2013). In addition, BranumMartin, Fletcher, and Stuebing (2013) discuss psychometric problems associated with cut scores. Consistent with the approach taken in DSM-5, they argue that it does not makes sense to treat LDs in reading and math as categories and espouse using a dimensional approach, which they claim is more appropriate for describing students’ learning characteristics and providing appropriate interventions. The discrepancy model is especially problematic for CLD children and adolescents because the discrepancy between IQ and academic achievement may be attenuated if both depend on OLP. The RTI approach was developed in the United States, in part to circumvent the problems inherent in discrepancy models and to encourage early identification and intervention (Fletcher, 2012). The RTI approach has several advantages over discrepancy models because it encourages early identification and intervention, delays the provision of a diagnosis until it is clear that the child does indeed have some ongoing difficulties, and does not involve costly psychological assessments (Hale et al., 2010; Tannock, 2013). As previously discussed, classes for L2 students where the L2 is taught intensively might be considered a Tier 2 intervention. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 3, research has provided guidelines about typical language and literacy development of L2 children who begin their education in the immigrant-receiving country in the primary grades, and about the assessment of cognitive processing deficits that are associated with achievement difficulties. Assuming that evidence-based Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions are used and that progress is assessed through valid measures, there are still several problems with the RTI approach for diagnostic decision making that also apply

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

155

to CLD children and adolescents. As summarized by Hale et al. (2010), these include measurement problems such as defining a cut-off for failure to respond, and difficulty defining whether the Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions provided are efficacious for the specific population. Furthermore, the research on RTI has mainly focused on word-level reading in young children, making this approach problematic for use with writing and math disability and with older children and adolescents. Probably the most concerning problem is that the RTI approach does not assist with decisions regarding differentiation of LD from other disabilities and disorders, including intellectual disabilities, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorders (Hale et al., 2010), as children with these and other disorders may not respond to intervention in typical ways. For L2 children and adolescents these concerns are exacerbated by low OLP. Both discrepancy and RTI approaches, however problematic, are methods for classifying children and adolescents as having a LD and determining eligibility for additional resources. These approaches do not provide an explanation of the factors that contribute to the disability. This is important because considerable research has demonstrated that children with different patterns of cognitive processing respond differentially to instruction in various domains (see Hale et al., 2010, for review). Definitions from several countries have included the specification that there are disorders in psychological, or cognitive, processes that impact learning (e.g., Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA, 2004] in the United States, Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario in Canada), and expert researchers and clinicians tend to agree that these should be described when diagnosing LD, and that there are valid measures for doing so (Hale et al., 2010). Flanagan and his colleagues (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Reynolds, 2013), for example, suggest that psychologists use a cross-battery approach for diagnosis of cognitive factors associated with LD by selecting specific tests that assess processes that research has shown are associated with difficulties in reading, writing, and mathematics. We maintain that this approach extends to L2 children as well. Nevertheless, as discussed in Chapter 6, it is important to be cognizant of the language and cultural demands of the specific cognitive tests administered. There is considerable research describing the cognitive deficits associated with reading, writing, and math difficulties. Phonological processing deficits and working memory difficulties are associated with word-level reading disabilities, and working memory and processing speed deficits are associated with math disabilities (see Johnson et al., 2010, for a systematic review of this extensive literature). As discussed in Chapter 3, both word-level reading difficulties and language difficulties are associated with text-level reading disabilities. Cognitive factors associated with writing disabilities are complex, as most children with LD in reading and mathematics have co-occurring writing disabilities (e.g., Berninger & May, 2011; Lennox & Siegel, 1993). Berninger and May (2011) indicate that children with dysgraphia have impairments in

156

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

handwriting, orthographic coding, and finger sequencing. They have difficulty coordinating the sequential finger movements required to produce the stored words. This output difficulty interferes with the amount they are able to write and the legibility of their written productions. Some children and adolescents with LD in writing have the phonological and orthographic coding and rapid naming difficulties associated with word-level reading disabilities. These individuals typically have significant difficulty with spelling. Berninger and May found that LDs in writing are also associated with OLP, especially morphographic and syntactic coding. Children and adolescents with writing difficulties also manifest EF challenges on cognitive tasks that assess shifting, initiation, and sustaining attention (Hooper, Swartz, Wakely, de Kruif, & Montgomery, 2002). The DSM-5 was created to function as a manual that facilitates reliable diagnoses of mental disorders. It provides a system for classifying behaviors and characteristics of individuals into clusters that correspond with specific disorders. Thus, its major function is classification rather than explanation. Consequently, the criteria for SLD are behavioral in nature. The criteria stipulate that the individual should have difficulties “learning and using academic skills” (p. 66) in the following areas: word-level reading, reading comprehension, spelling, written expression, mathematical calculation, and mathematical reasoning. Unlike DSM-IV, where the specific areas of academic impairment were classified as separate disorders, the co-occurrence of difficulties in different academic domains is acknowledged in DSM-5. Psychologists and other mental health professionals are therefore required to “specify all academic domains and subskills that are impaired” (p. 67). The DSM-5 continues to stipulate that the difficulties in academic skills should “have persisted for at least 6 months, despite the provision of interventions that target these difficulties” (p. 66). Although not requiring a formal RTI approach with three tiers, the DSM-5 recognizes that low-academic achievement may be due to “psychosocial adversity, lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction, or inadequate educational instruction” (p. 67) and explicitly excludes a diagnosis of SLD when these are the only reasons for a person’s low achievement. This requirement is especially important for CLD children and adolescents who often are learning in their L2, may have to adjust to living in a cultural environment that is foreign to them and their parents, may have had inadequate or interrupted schooling or a different curriculum from that provided in the immigrant-receiving country, and may be impoverished or have suffered from trauma. This implies that the dynamic assessment methods and systemic analysis outlined above are critical for the diagnosis of LD in these children and adolescents. As is the case with most previous definitions of LDs, the DSM-5 stipulates the following: “The learning difficulties are not better accounted for by intellectual disabilities, uncorrected visual or auditory acuity, other mental or

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

157

neurological disorders” (p. 67). As discussed in Chapter 6, assessment of intellectual ability is challenging due to the language and cultural demands of the commonly used individual standardized IQ tests; consequently, psychologists should be cautious when diagnosing intellectual disabilities. It is very important to ensure that vision and hearing acuity are checked, as this might not routinely be the case for children and adolescents who are recent immigrants and refugees. In Chapter 8, we discuss the diagnosis of social, emotional, and behavioral disorders, including ADHD (which often co-occurs with LD), and autism spectrum disorders. The DSM-5 refers to SLD as a neurodevelopmental disorder and describes the development and course of the disorder. The manual indicates that the symptoms are usually observed during the elementary school years but that “precursors such as language delays or deficits, difficulties in rhyming or counting, or difficulties with fine motor skills required for writing commonly occur in early childhood before the start of formal schooling” (p. 71). As previously discussed, obtaining a developmental history from parents to elicit their perceptions of these early difficulties is useful, regardless of whether the child is learning in the L1 or L2. When children are referred for assessment, their parents often disclose that they were delayed in the acquisition of these skills in comparison to siblings. Examination of report cards from their home country may also be helpful. The DSM-5 does not require that psychologists consider cognitive processing deficits such as difficulties with phonological processing, working memory, or processing speed in diagnosing an SLD; instead, these underlying cognitive processing deficits are referred to as “Associated Features Supporting Diagnosis” (p. 70). The rationale for not including these as symptoms is that it is not clear whether these deficits are “the cause, correlate, or consequence of the learning difficulties,” and are not specific to individuals with SLD. Furthermore, although the DSM-5 acknowledges that “an uneven profile of abilities is common” and that “they typically exhibit poor performance on tests of psychological processing” (p. 70), this is not always the case. Consequently, in order to give a DSM-5 diagnosis for CLD children and adolescents, it is not necessary to assess cognitive processing in depth, once below average intellectual ability is ruled out. Nevertheless, DSM-5 indicates that assessment of cognitive processing deficits may be helpful in developing intervention plans. Although not required for diagnosis, DSM-5 mentions risk and prognostic factors associated with SLD including prematurity, very low birth weight, and prenatal exposure to nicotine. The manual discusses the genetic findings that SLD is heritable and is “substantially higher in first-degree relatives of individuals with learning difficulties compared with those without them” (p. 72). The implication for assessment of CLD children and adolescents is that psychologists should clearly ask about learning difficulties in the immediate family. It is important to be aware, however, that some parents may be initially

158

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

reluctant to disclose this information, as this may be stigmatizing in their cultures, but may do so once a trusting professional relationship is established. There is also the possibility that immediate family do not have a diagnosis due to various sociocultural and socioeconomic reasons, even though they do in fact have LDs. Sometimes anecdotal information that is disclosed in interviews may suggest just that. Finally, DSM-5 specifically addresses “culture-related diagnostic issues.” The text clearly acknowledges the position taken in this Guidebook that SLD occurs across “languages, cultures, races and socioeconomic conditions” (p. 72) and mentions the issues discussed at length in Chapter 3 regarding commonalities and differences across languages and orthographies. As previously recommended, diagnosis of LD in L2 learners should include determining whether there is a history of a SLD in the family, delays in developing OLP in L1, and difficulties in developing language and literacy skills in the L2 compared to peers and siblings in a similar context. Assessing the school and classroom environment may be helpful because teachers who believe that they play a large part in enhancing achievement of CLD students and students with LD and other special educational needs provide instruction for them that enhances academic achievement. It is also important to examine parent engagement with their children’s learning and their attributions about their children’s learning because, as was discussed in Chapter 4, being engaged and supportive is positively associated with academic achievement.

CONCLUSION Assessment of academic achievement in CLD students is a complex task because standardized test norms merely compare them to other students in the immigrant-receiving country. Due to challenges with OLP, interrupted education or different curricula, and cultural differences, these students may obtain relatively low scores on these tests. Consequently, psychologists should be familiar with a variety of assessment approaches, including systemic and dynamic assessment, and take the time to observe RTI. A strong understanding of the development of CLD children and cultural differences is crucial when interpreting achievement test data.

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

159

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT To Do

Not to Do

Use multiple methods including standardized achievement tests, observation, teacher interviews, curriculum-based assessment of response to intervention, and dynamic assessment.

Delay assessment of achievement for several years when the child is struggling academically more than peers in a similar context.

Carefully consider cultural bias of tests, previous Assume that academic achievement of schooling in the home country, and child OLP immigrant and refugee children should be when interpreting assessment data. below that of their native-born peers. Assess adaptive academic skills.

Rely solely on scores on standardized academic achievement tests.

To Do

Not to Do

Assess teacher attitudes and practices. Assess executive functioning through an interview using authentic tasks. Do careful error analyses. Consider developmental research on development of OLP, reading, writing, and math skills and research on LD in L2 students when diagnosing LD. L1, first language; L2, second language; LD, learning disability; OLP, oral language proficiency.

160

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview Section 1: Classroom Demands Record Form How does your teacher teach?

How are you marked?

Subject: __________________________ __________________________________ Grade: _____________________________ Teacher’s Name: __________________________________ Subject: __________________________ __________________________________ Grade: _____________________________ Teacher’s Name: __________________________________ Subject: __________________________ __________________________________ Grade: _____________________________ Teacher’s Name: __________________________________ Subject: __________________________ __________________________________ Grade: _____________________________ Teacher’s Name: __________________________________ (continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

161

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Probes for Classroom Demands

Ask the bolded question regarding each relevant course and use probes as required. How does your teacher teach? 1. How much time does your teacher spend talking to the class as a whole?

2. How much time does your teacher spend asking the class questions?

3. How much time does your teacher spend having you do individual seatwork?

4. Does your teacher move around the class and help people while they are doing seatwork?

5. How much time does your teacher spend having the class do group work?

6. Does your teacher move around the class and help people while they are doing group work?

7. Do you feel comfortable asking the teacher to explain things when you don’t understand?

8. Does your teacher explain things to you when you don’t understand?

(continued )

162

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) 9. Does your teacher allow you to have other kids explain things to you when you don’t understand?

10. Does your teacher a. Write on the board? Yes ____ No ____ b. Use a data projector? Yes ____ No ____ c. Use the computer (or Smart Board) to present information?

Yes ____ No ____

11. Do you have access to a computer with assistive technology? Yes ____ No ____ a. What do you use? __________________________________ b. Is it helpful? Yes ____ No ____ How are you marked? 1. How much of your grade is from a. Notebooks? b. Tests or quizzes? c. Exams? d. Lab reports? e. Essays? f. Projects? g. Class participation? h. Doing your homework? i. Other? 2. Does your teacher take in your notebooks? Your homework?

3. How long does it usually take for the teacher to give back work or tests he/she marks?

4. Does the teacher just mark your work or does he/she give you ideas about how to improve?

(continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

163

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Section 2: Questions for Essay/Project/Report Writing

Ask the student to bring a sample of an expository essay, project, or report that required doing research, and ask the questions below about this writing sample. The Task Environment 1. How did you select the topic/book? ______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Are you interested in it? Very ___ Somewhat ___ Not at all ____ 3. What did the teacher do when giving out the assignment? ___________________________ Probes for Teacher Action

Yes/No

Notes

Gave oral guidelines Gave written guidelines Selected the topic or book Provided structure Increased your interest Other 4. Who are you expecting to read the essay? _________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Previous Knowledge 5. Have you previously been taught to write essays/projects/reports? Yes _____ No _____ What were you taught? ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. What did you know about the topic before you started? _____________________________ _________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 7. What do you think are the expectations of your reader/teacher? ____________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Planning 8. Did you have a plan for writing the essay/project/report? Yes _____ No _____ What was it? _________________________________________________________________ (continued )

164

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) 9. When did you begin thinking about the topic? _____________________________________ _____________________________________ 10. Did you do any research? Yes _____ No _____ What resources did you use? ____________ ____________________________________________________________________________ How did you access the resources? _______________________________________________ Internet _______ Library _______ Other _____________________________________ 11. How much time did you have for writing (i.e., between date assignment was given and assignment due)? _____ days. How did you use that time? ___________________________ ____________ _______________________________________________________________ 12. Did you make an outline? Yes _____ No _____ What kind of thinking did you do first? ____________________________________________________________________________ What was your organizational plan (outline)? ______________________________________ Did you use a graphic organizer? Yes _____ No _____ What type? ____________________ Translating/Reviewing 13. How many drafts did you write? One _______ Two _______ Three _______ 14. How long did it take to write each one? 1. _______ hrs/mins, 2. _______ hrs/mins,

3. _______ hrs/mins

15. Did you write your first draft with pencil? _____ pen? _____ computer? ____ 16. Are you able to type? Yes ______ No _____ How fast? _____________________ Is typing faster or slower than handwriting? _____________________________ 17. If you used a computer, did you use Spell check? Yes _______ No _______ Grammar check? Yes ________ No _______ Word prediction software? Yes ______ No _____ Speech-to-text software? Yes ______ No _____ Other assistive technology? __________________________________________________ Was the computer helpful? __________________________________________________ 18. Did you double-space your first draft? 19. Did you read your first draft over? make?

Yes ______ No ______

Yes ______ No ______ What kind of changes did you

(continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

165

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) 20. Did you ask a friend or family member to read the first draft and make suggestions? Yes ______ No ______ What kind of suggestions did he or she have? ___________________ Did you make the changes he or she suggested? Yes ______ No ______ Why or why not?

21. Did you proofread/spell check/grammar check the final draft? Yes ______ No ______ Evaluating 22. How did you feel about the essay/project/report in the end? __________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 23. What grade did you think you would get? _______ Why? _____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 24. What was the teacher’s evaluation? ______________________________________________ ____ ______________________________________________________________________ 25. You wrote this essay/project/paper in ___________ (indicate language). Would you be able to write a better paper in _____________________(name first language)? Yes ____ No_____ Why or why not?______________________________________________________ ____ ________________________________________________________________________ 26. Would you use the same strategies to write the paper in ___________________ (name first language)? _________________________________________________________________ Notes:

Section 3: Checklist for Assessing Study Skills and Examinations

Ask students to bring in samples of tests they wrote, examine the test, and ask them the following questions. Type of Test Multiple-choice _______ Short answer _______ Essay _______ Standardized _______ Class test _______ % of Grade _______ Subject: ________________________________________________________________ (continued )

166

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Test Preparation Interview the student by asking the open-ended question first, followed by the probe questions as required. Tell me how you study: ___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ______ Probes: 1. Do you usually study in a special place? Yes _____ No _____ Where? _________________ 2. Do you have a special time for studying? Yes _____ No _____ When? _________________ 3. How long can you study before you take a break? _______ hours _______ minutes 4. When you know you have a test coming up a week away, when do you start studying for it? ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 5. Do you usually find yourself having to cram the night before? Yes _____ No _____ For how long can you cram before you can’t concentrate any longer? ______ hours ______ minutes 6. Do you prefer to study in a quiet place, with music playing or in front of the television set? _ ___________________________________________________________________________ What do you normally do? ______________________________________________________ 7. Do you have the computer on when you study? Yes _____ No _____ What do you do? _____ __________________________________________________________________________ a. Do you go on Facebook or other social media when you study? Yes _____ No _____ Is it distracting? Yes _____ No _____ b. Do you surf YouTube or other sites when you study? Yes _____ No _____ c. Do you use the computer to study together with other students? Yes _____ No _____ d. Do you use Internet tutorials or YouTube videos that teach you what you need to learn when you study? Yes _____ No _____ e. Do you use an online dictionary or dictionary app? Yes _____ No _____ f. Do you use Google translate or similar program? Yes _____ No _____ g. Which of these uses of the computer are helpful? _______________________________ 8. Do you sit at a desk, in an easy chair, or lie on the bed or the floor when you study? _______ ____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Do you study from your notebook? _____ textbook? _____ computer screen? _______ Which do you like best? __________________________________________________ (continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

167

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) 10. Tell me what goes through your head as you study. _________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 11. When you study, do you try to figure out what information is most important? Yes _____ No _____ or to predict what questions will be on the test? Yes _____ No _____ How do you do that? __________________________________________________________ 12. Which subjects do you find the easiest to study? ___________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Why? ______________________________________________________________________ 13. Which subjects do you find the hardest to study? __________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Why? _______________________________________________________________________ Test-Taking Behavior Ask the student the following questions and evaluate performance in each area by marking a 9 in the appropriate column: 14. Do you usually get to tests or exams on time?

Yes _____ No _____

15. How do you make sure you do? ____________________________________________ 16. What materials (e.g., pencil, pen, eraser) do you bring to the test/exam? 17. Do you write your test/exam in the same room as everyone else or in a private room? _____ ____________________________________________________________ 18. Do you get extra time on tests/exams? Yes _____ No _____ Do you have enough time? Yes _____ No _____ Explain ____________________________________________ 19. How do you plan your time? _________________________________________________ 20. Do you check your work? Yes _____ No _____ What strategies do you use? 21. How did you feel when you wrote the test? (probe feelings that won’t do well and bodily sensations of anxiety such as heart palpitations, sweaty palms) _______________________ 22. What grade did you think you would get on this test? ________ What grade did you get? _________ Why do you think you got this grade? ______________________________ (continued )

168

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Test-Taking Rating Scale Excellent Adequate Inadequate

Notes

Punctuality Equipped (e.g., pen, pencil) Motivation Planning of time Accuracy of prediction of grade High

Medium

Low

Anxiety Test Product Analyze a recent examination or test by examining the areas listed below and questioning the student when clarification is needed. It is best to choose an exam or test that involves responses of at least a sentence. Evaluate the student’s performance in each area by marking a 9 in the appropriate column: Ratings of Test Product Excellent

Adequate Inadequate

N/A

Notes

Handwriting Accuracy of reading questions Comprehension of subtleties of questions Spelling Grammar Punctuation Appropriateness of vocabulary to discipline Sequencing and organization of thoughts (continued )

169

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Relevance of answers Conceptualization of answers Elaboration of answers Planning of time Section 4: Note Making

Ask students to bring in notebooks for one or more courses, or the binder where they keep their notes. If notes are written on a laptop computer, ask them to bring the computer. Ask students to take you through the notebook or binder, explaining why it is organized the way it is and the degree to which the information is clear and accessible for studying. Subject(s): ______________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the student’s performance in each area by marking a 9 in the appropriate column: Analysis of Notebooks and Binders Excellent Adequate

Inadequate

Notes

Handwriting Legibility Neatness Speed Typed Comments Overall organization Clarity of subject delineation (e.g., history, math, etc., kept separate instead of mixed) Clarity of headings Work dated (continued )

170

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Use of space and indentation (e.g., to denote subordination of ideas) Appropriateness of sequence within subject Student’s ability to retrieve information Utility for studying Comments Content Completeness of notes Summary of main ideas Appropriate amount of detail Comments

Teacher Role

The following questions should be answered by interviewing the student and examining the notebook. 1. For which subjects are your notebooks marked? For what percentage of the grade? Subject

Marked yes/no

% of grade

Notes

(continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

171

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) 2. What do you think your teacher(s) look(s) for when marking your notebook? What kind of notebook will give you a good grade? _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. What is the nature of your teachers’ comments in your notebooks? _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Have you ever been taught how to make notes? Yes _____ No _____ How were you taught? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Section 5: Getting Information From a Textbook

Ask students to bring in a textbook that they use for courses such as history, geography, or science. Choose a chapter on a topic they have recently studied to assess their strategies. Text: Subject ______________________________ Grade level ____________ ______________________________ ____________ Word Identification Ask the student to read aloud a passage of about 200 words. Note the number of words identified correctly. __________ % of words were identified correctly. If the student identified 90% or more of the words correctly, proceed with the assessment. If the student identified less than 90% of the words correctly, select an easier textbook. Hesitations and self-corrections should not be counted as errors. If the student has challenges with word identification, ask whether he/she uses text to speech software. If so, conduct the survey of strategies using an electronic textbook document. Survey of Strategies Tell the student to show you how he/she would study the chapter in order to learn the material for a test. Ask him/her to verbalize his/her thoughts during the course of reading. Note the strategies employed by placing a 9 in the blank space. Strategy

Yes/No

Notes

Prereading Skims introduction Examines headings and subheadings (continued )

172

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Prereading Examines figures and illustrations Asks questions about bolded or italicized words Reads conclusions Reads questions at end of chapter

Reading Reads chapter from beginning to end Begins to read chapter and then gives up Underlines or highlights key information Makes notes in a notebook Makes notes in a computer document Spontaneously asks himself/herself questions Used study questions as a guide for reading Picks out the main ideas or important points Paraphrases main ideas or important points Looks up unknown words in a hard copy dictionary Looks up unknown words in an electronic dictionary Understands provided definitions of unknown words Predicts questions that might be on a test or exam Other Some students have strategies in their repertoire that they do not use unless directed to do so. Select a different chapter in the same textbook and rate the student’s skill on the following directed procedures. Strategy

Excellent

Adequate Inadequate Notes

Gets appropriate information from Introduction Headings and subheadings (continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

173

Table 7.1 Learning Strategies Interview (continued) Strategy

Excellent

Adequate Inadequate Notes

Bolded or italicized words Figures and illustrations Conclusions Study questions at end of chapter

Uses the following strategies while reading Self-questioning Paraphrasing main ideas Identifying words not understood Looking up words in hard copy or electronic dictionary Predicting examination questions Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

174

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 7.2 Observations of How Child Learns Best Preferred Presentation Method

Notes

Auditory/visual/multiple sensory Verbal sequential/graphic simultaneous Verbal/demonstration/hands-on Concrete/abstract Direct/discovery Spaced/massed practice Toleration of drill Pace Amount of repetition Preferred Response Mode Oral/written Multiple choice/short answer/essay Matching (pointing)/copying/ sequencing/retrieval Workbook or worksheet Activity (building, dramatic, role-play) Game Computer Active/passive Rehearsal Imagery Mnemonics Asking for help Self-monitoring Response Problems Slow rate Short attention span (continued )

7. ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Table 7.2 Observations of How Child Learns Best (continued) Response Problems Impulsiveness Low-frustration tolerance Anxiety Requires frequent reinforcement Difficulty understanding questions Word finding difficulties Challenges expressing clear response

Notes

175

Assessment of Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Functioning CHAPTER 8:

Myth: As long as children and parents read and speak English and appear to be acculturated to the immigrant-receiving country, standardized behavioral rating scales and projective tests are appropriate tools for assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children. Fact: Language and culture may influence how children and parents interpret items on behavioral rating scales and projective tests. Consequently, scores on standardized tests may not be applicable. In addition, there may be specific issues that need to be assessed due to immigration and cultural factors.

T

his chapter provides guidelines for psychologists to use when assessing behavioral, social, and emotional functioning of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents. We begin by describing the typical methods psychologists use to assess these areas, and analyzing them in terms of their effectiveness and validity with CLD children and teens. Some of the problems with these methods include the linguistic demands of various instruments and assumptions about typical behavior that are not universal across cultures. We then propose that psychologists use an adaptation of Mash and Hunsley’s (2007) developmental systems approach (DSA) to assess CLD children and adolescents. As the DSA involves examining the contexts in which children function, the chapter includes a discussion of assessment of peer relationships. We then discuss specific issues involved in assessment of CLD children and adolescents who display inattentive and hyperactive–impulsive behaviors, externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and severe social problems. We specifically address questions involving the use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) with CLD children and adolescents

178

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

to diagnose specific disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety and mood disorders, and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). All of the case studies presented in the Appendix discuss some aspect of behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.

ANALYSIS OF INSTRUMENTS PSYCHOLOGISTS USE TO ASSESS BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING Psychologists typically use a variety of instruments to assess behavioral, social, and emotional functioning (Kohn, Scorcia, & Esquivel, 2007; Sattler & Hoge, 2006) including broad-band rating scale measures, rating scales for specific disorders, projective tests, and standardized diagnostic interviews. These are described in the following text. Self-report, parent and teacher broad-band behavior rating scales, such as the Behavior Assessment System for Children—Second Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), the Conners Rating Scales—Third Edition (Conners, 2008), and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, which includes the Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report, and Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), are often used for screening purposes. These measures list behavioral symptoms of a variety of relatively high-incidence neurodevelopmental, internalizing and externalizing behavioral disorders such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression. Raters indicate the severity or frequency of these behavioral symptoms using a Likert-type scale. These rating scales are commonly used in countries where English is the first language (L1; e.g., United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia) and are normed in the United States. Many of these scales are also translated into languages spoken in other Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries and in some cases are normed for those countries. They typically generate T-scores that have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, as well as percentile ranks, and suggest a cut-off of T = 70 for determining that a child has a disorder that is in the clinical range and requires treatment. Parent report scales are most often used by psychologists in clinical settings, and are sometimes completed before an appointment is scheduled. Although teacher report data are often requested, assessments frequently occur without the teachers’ perspective. School psychologists tend to use both parent and teacher report scales, often relying quite heavily on teacher reports. Children’s self-report scales are typically used with older children and adolescents in both school and clinical settings. Rating scales that assess specific problems such as depression, anxiety, and ASDs are also frequently used (Sattler & Hoge, 2006). Examples of such tests include the Children’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (CDI 2; Kovacs, 2011), the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale—Youth and Parent Report (RCADS;

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

179

Chorpita, Yim, Moffitt, Umemoto, & Francis, 2000), the Beck Youth Inventories (Beck, Beck, & Jolly, 2001), and the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (Goldstein & Naglieri, 2012). Similar to the broad measures, they list a variety of behavioral symptoms, use Likert scales, are normed in the United States, and generate T-scores and percentile ranks. In many settings, psychologists use various projective tests to get a better understanding of the child’s perspective. These include drawing methods such as the Draw a Person Test (Koppitz, 1984), House-Tree-Person (Buck, 1981), Kinetic Family Drawing (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), sentence completions, and formal tests such as The Rorschach Inkblot Test in combination with the Rorschach Comprehensive System (Exner, 1993), and the Roberts Apperception Test (Roberts-2; Roberts, 2005). Drawing methods have some appeal for use with CLD children and adolescents because the requirements for oral language proficiency (OLP) are minimal, and because there are many commonalities in the developmental sequence of drawing skills (Kohn et al., 2007). Both drawing methods and formal projective tests have considerable problems with reliability and validity (see Sattler & Hoge, 2006, for review of specific tests), which are exacerbated with CLD children and adolescents (Kohn et al., 2007). Semi-structured and structured diagnostic interviews are a fourth method that psychologists typically use to assess behavioral, social, and emotional functioning. Similar to rating scales, these interviews are designed to assess the presence, frequency, and severity of problem behaviors or characteristics, but unlike the rating scales they also assess onset and duration of symptomatology and impairment in key domains such as family relationships, peer relationships, and school functioning (Sattler & Hoge, 2006). One commonly used example of a diagnostic interview is the Kiddie-Sads-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL; Kaufman, Birmaher, Brent, & Rao, 1997). Administration of the K-SADS involves interviewing parents and children. Interviewers begin with an unstructured Introductory Interview, and then administer the Diagnostic Screening Interview. After scoring the screening interview and determining the general areas of difficulty, diagnostic supplements in specific areas (affective disorders, psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders, behavioral disorders, and substance use) are administered, followed by a global assessment of functioning. The K-SADS and other diagnostic interviews are designed to assist with the formulation of a diagnosis in accordance with the DSM and are being revised to be consistent with the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). There are several problems with the use of such norm-referenced rating scales, projective tests, and standardized diagnostic interviews for assessing CLD children, youth, and families. These include language and literacy levels of parents in relation to task demands, familiarity with these types of tasks, and cultural factors that impact parents’ and children’s views of the validity of psychologists’ approach to assessment and the content and face validity of instruments. Due to differing values and attributions (see Chapter 4), parents

180

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

and children may have a different perspective on whether certain behaviors are problematic, and may have a communication style that is not congruent with typical ways of communicating in the immigrant-receiving country.

Language Demands of Standardized Psychological Tests Standardized behavioral, social, and emotional tests and diagnostic interviews have significant language demands and therefore cannot be administered in the language of the immigrant-receiving country to families who barely speak the language (Kohn et al., 2007). Therefore, there are several cautions that need to be considered in relation to language. If parents or children have acquired basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) but otherwise their language is limited, it may be tempting to ask them to complete a standardized instrument, even though they may not have an adequate understanding of the items and may be more likely than families whose L1 is the language of the test to misinterpret them. One method that psychologists frequently use is to translate the test into the L1 of the parent or child, or to have an interpreter read the items aloud in the L1 (Kohn et al., 2007). Without considerable work to determine their reliability and validity, instruments translated into parents’ and immigrant youths’ L1 may not be valid because in many instances that language may not have a word for the concept, and the translation may not entirely capture the original intent of the item and place the item in a context to which the client can relate (Dana, 2005). For example, in Hindi the term for anxiety reflects worrying about something specific, but there is no word for having elevated general or trait anxiety (Varma, personal communication, October 2013). Furthermore, even if they speak the language of the tests or a dialect of that language, parents might use different terms to express the same ideas. Parents from various English-speaking countries in the Caribbean, for example, might say that their children are backward or blue. It is not clear whether backward means that they think the child has an intellectual disability or whether blue means that they think the child is depressed. Moreover, psychologists who are not familiar with these local terms may miss crucial information provided by parents. That said, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) has been translated into 75 languages and has psychometric data from several European countries as well as several other countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Japan, Russia, and Yemen. This screening instrument, which is available on the Internet, has versions for parents and teachers of 4- to 16-year-olds, parents and preschool teachers of 3- and 4-year-olds, and a self-report version for children and adolescents aged 11 to 16 years (Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). The 25 items comprise five statements about each of the following: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, inattention/hyperactivity-impulsivity, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior. Goodman et al. (2012) found that the

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

181

prevalence rates of various disorders and the estimates provided by the SDQ varied immensely across countries, with the SDQ-predicting disorder accurately in Britain, underestimating it in Norway, and overestimating it in Brazil, India, Russia, and Yemen. This suggests that although the SDQ might provide initial data from parents, teachers, and teens about CLD children’s social and emotional functioning, the scores should be interpreted with caution in order to minimize under- or over-identification.

Influence of Cultural Differences on the Assessment Process Cultural issues are as important as language issues in assessing behavioral, social, and emotional functioning even though on the surface they may seem to be subtle. In order to understand why many of the methods previously described need to be used with caution, it is important to discuss how cultural factors may influence children’s, parents’, and teachers’ behaviors and responses. At the same time, psychologists must be aware that not all members of a cultural group have the same attitudes and that children, youth, and families differ in terms of their acculturation to the immigrant-receiving society. As discussed in Chapter 4, CLD families differ on several dimensions that affect the assessment process. These dimensions include individualism/collectivism, mind/body dualism, high/low context, and short-term/long-term orientation. Cultures also vary with respect to the value placed on academic achievement, tolerance for diversity, family structure, and gender roles. Furthermore, acculturation patterns in the adoption of the values and practices of the immigrant-receiving country are very important when these cultural differences are considered. There are specific cultural differences that may affect children’s and parents’ responses to specific items on tests, rating scales, and interviews that assess behavioral, social, and emotional functioning. As illustrated by the cases of Amy (Appendix Case Study 1) and Changgun/Brandon (Appendix Case Study 5), there are cultural differences in terms of valuing specific behavioral traits such as activity level, aggression, politeness, modesty, and shyness (e.g., Chen et al., 2004b). Behaviors that may seem extreme to teachers may be viewed as normative by parents or the students themselves. For example, Chen et al. (2004b) found that self-perceptions of social competence were negatively associated with shyness in Italian, Canadian, and Brazilian children but not in Chinese children, and positively associated with academic achievement in Canadian and Chinese children but not in Italian and Brazilian children. With regard to the same behavior (e.g., inattention), parents may attribute their children’s difficulties to insufficient effort, inadequate schooling in the immigrant-receiving country, physical illness, or spiritual factors such as punishment for the actions of ancestors (Gajjar et al., 2000). Parents and children from some cultures may describe anxiety and depression in physical terms such as problems with eating and sleeping or having stomachaches, and not recognize the mental state issues

182

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

in relation to these disorders (Simon, VonKorff, Piccinelli, Fullerton, & Ormel, 1999). For example, Ryder et al. (2008) found that Chinese adults reported more somatic and fewer psychological state descriptions of depression on both rating scales and in clinical interviews than did Canadian adults. Nevertheless, there are some cross-cultural commonalities in children’s need for parental love and acceptance, and the negative consequences of parental rejection (see Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005, for a review of this literature). Finally, symbols (e.g., colors, shapes, animals, natural objects) have different meanings across cultures. For people from China, for example, white represents death, whereas in most European cultures it represents virginity and innocence and as a result is the color of wedding dresses. Wedding dresses are red in China because red is associated with good luck, creativity, and long life (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/Chinese_Customs/colours.htm). In most Canadian Aboriginal cultures, the bear represents introspection, harmony, and balance, and the raven represents creation or trickery (http://shop.slcc.ca/ node/5). Although drawings and projective tests may be a useful way of learning about the perspectives of some CLD children, due to the cultural differences in the meaning of symbols, it is often inappropriate to interpret them using Eurocentric, psychodynamic theory.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK—THE DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS APPROACH Mash and Hunsley (2007) discussed five goals of an assessment of behavioral, social, and emotional functioning in children and adolescents: 1. To determine the presence or absence of a clinical disorder; 2. To assess whether there are cooccurring conditions; 3. To delineate the types of interventions that might be appropriate for the individual; 4. To assess the pattern of strengths and weaknesses of the child or adolescent, and how those strengths and weaknesses affect treatment planning; and 5. To assess the knowledge of the family or other caregivers about treatment options.

In order to accomplish these goals, it is necessary to understand the cognitive, biological, and contextual factors that contribute to the behavioral, social, and emotional functioning of the children and adolescents who are participating in the assessment. As discussed by Dana (2000) and Kohn et al. (2007), the first step in carrying out an assessment of behavioral, social, and emotional functioning of CLD children and adolescents is to determine whether cultural differences might affect the quality of the data obtained and interpretation of the results. If cultural differences might affect the results, clinicians need to decide whether adaptations

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

183

are needed for standardized measures, whether new instruments that are specific to the culture need to be found or created, or whether informal observational and interview strategies should be used. The determination of whether cultural factors will influence assessment results involves assessing the degree of acculturation of the child, adolescent, and family; methods for doing so are described in Chapter 4. Instruments standardized in the immigrant-receiving country may be valid for some children and adolescents who have become acculturated into that society, but there still may be subtle cultural influences that affect their responses that need to be considered in interpreting the results. In some cases, the children and adolescents are not integrated into the culture of the immigrant-receiving country; depending on the nature of the cultural differences, the use of rating scales and projective tests may be inappropriate for them, even if the instruments are modified. It is also often not possible to adapt rating scales for specific cultural groups as the resources for doing so are not available, especially if the population from that group in the immigrant-receiving country is not very large. We recommend using an adaptation of Mash and Hunsley’s (2007) DSA to assess the behavioral, social, and emotional functioning of CLD children and adolescents. The assumptions of this approach are appropriate for assessment of CLD children and youth, even though some of the tools that Mash and Hunsley recommend such as standardized diagnostic interviews and rating scales may not be appropriate in all cases. Mash and Hunsley define DSA as “a range of deliberate assessment strategies for understanding both disturbed and nondisturbed children and their social systems, including families and peer groups” (p. 6). They state that “these strategies employ a flexible and ongoing process of hypothesis testing regarding the nature of the problem, its causes, and likely outcome in the absence of intervention, and the anticipated effects of various treatments” (p. 6). In this guidebook, we are emphasizing culture as one of the social systems, in relation to its impact on families, schools, and peer groups. According to Mash and Hunsley (2007), the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of children and adolescents should be viewed as samples of the domains of interest rather than signs of underlying or remote causes. It is therefore important for psychologists to be reminded that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are both consistent and variable over time. Children are typically referred to psychologists because they are exhibiting functional impairment, or their behaviors are disturbing to their parents, teachers, and peers. Parents and teachers may be concerned about inattentive and hyperactive–impulsive behaviors; externalizing behaviors such as noncompliance and aggression; internalizing behaviors such as social withdrawal, anxiety, and low mood; and socially inappropriate behaviors that affect social relationships. In some cases, these behaviors are concerning only to parents or teachers, and in other cases to both. Parents may consent to a psychological assessment of their children in the school setting in order to please teachers and school

184

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

administrators, even though they do not believe there is a problem. Conversely, some parents are concerned about behaviors that teachers view as normative, possibly because they are normative within the immigrant-receiving country but not within the parents’ country of origin. Peers may reject CLD children and teens due to behaviors and characteristics that parents and teachers accept. The following principles, adapted from Mash and Hunsley (2007), underlie the process we are recommending for the assessment of behavioral, social, and emotional functioning. 1. In order to acquire valid assessment information in the social and emotional domain, it is critical to develop a trusting relationship with children, youth, and families. 2. Assessments should focus on children’s and families’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in specific situations as well as general personality traits and dispositions. These thoughts, feelings, and behaviors should be viewed as samples of the domains of interest rather than signs of underlying or remote causes. 3. A systemic approach should be applied; that is, characteristics of the child and family should be assessed within the contexts that they are expressed.

Developing Trust It is extremely important to develop a trusting relationship when working with children and adolescents from CLD backgrounds. In addition to the need to develop rapport in all assessments, it is important to be aware that some CLD children and teens have experienced trauma and are reluctant to trust. The strategies for gaining the trust of children from CLD backgrounds are essentially the same as with all children. As discussed by Sattler (2008), these include being at their level physically, inviting parents to accompany them into the assessment room, entering into the game or activity they were playing in the waiting room or waiting until they finish, and letting them know about transitions. Playing with them, giving them the opportunity to draw pictures and talk about them, responding to their lead, providing positive feedback and praise, and allowing them to share their interests are all helpful. Many of these methods are described in the case study of Amy (Appendix Case Study 1). Adolescents are typically involved in the initial interview that includes their parents. As illustrated by the case of Changgun/Brandon (Appendix Case Study 5), although some are engaged and clearly choose to be involved in the assessment, others may sit silently, and sometimes sullenly, conveying nonverbally that the assessment was not their choice. Once the psychologist meets with them privately it is important to be empathic, discuss how they will be the first to obtain the results of the assessment (when appropriate), and that within the limits of confidentiality there is some information that will not be disclosed

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

185

to their parents or guardians unless they want that to happen. Psychologists should attempt to convey that they know that the challenges that result from being an immigrant or refugee and living with parents who have not adapted to the society of the immigrant-receiving country (if that is the case) is difficult. In some cases, it might be helpful to let older children and adolescents teach the psychologist about some aspect of their language or culture, and only move onto discussions of difficult and traumatic experiences when they are ready.

Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors As recommended by Mash and Hunsley (2007), multiple methods and informants are typically needed for assessing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Because both adaptive and maladaptive behaviors are, by definition, observable, they can be assessed by observing children in the clinic, classroom, and school playground. School report cards, teacher rating scales, and asking parents and teachers to describe behaviors during typical school days and weekend days (in the case of parents) are methods that typically generate rich behavioral descriptions as illustrated in several case studies in the Appendix (Amy, Case Study 1; Boris, Case Study 2; Diego, Case Study 3; and Changgun/Brandon, Case Study 5). Because behaviors may be consistent or variable across contexts, it is clearly necessary to observe the antecedents and consequences of behaviors context by context. In addition, it is useful to understand the function of the behavior for the child (e.g., for attention, self-stimulation, avoidance), as understanding the function in conjunction with antecedents and consequences is likely to assist in developing behavioral treatments. Thoughts are not usually observable unless they are expressed verbally. Therefore, interviews are important to assess beliefs and attributions for children’s behaviors. Although feelings are often observable, asking children, adolescents, parents, and teachers how they feel in certain situations may also be helpful. In the following text, we describe methods for assessing inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive behaviors, externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and severe social communication problems that might reflect ASDs.

Contexts Mash and Hunsley (2007) indicate that it is important to assess children and adolescents with reference to the contexts that they live in, and to examine the reciprocal impact of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of children and adolescents who are referred for assessment on their family, as well as the impact of the family context on their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In Chapter 4, we discussed the issues involved in understanding the family context of CLD children and teens, and in Chapter 7 we discussed the school context in terms of classroom learning. The third major context that children and adolescents

186

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

function in is the peer group, which becomes increasingly important in middle childhood and adolescence. In the next section, we discuss issues involved in assessing the peer context, and assessment options for doing so.

ASSESSING PEER RELATIONS AND THE PEER CONTEXT A comprehensive assessment of behavioral, social, and emotional functioning includes an examination of peer relations because the peer group is a major system in which children function (Schneider, 1993). There are three main aspects of peer relations that should be part of this assessment (Crowe, Beauchamp, Catroppa, & Anderson, 2011; Schneider, Wiener, & Murphy, 1994): peer acceptance, friendship, and bullying. Peer acceptance or popularity refers to children’s acceptance by the groups they participate in, which in most contexts comprises classmates. Most children have average peer acceptance. Those who are popular are liked by a high proportion of the group and disliked by few, if any; those who are rejected are disliked by a high proportion of the group and liked by few, if any; and those who are neglected are neither liked nor disliked by the group members. According to Schneider et al. (1994), friendship refers to a dyadic relationship involving companionship, tangible support and mutual assistance, intimacy and disclosure, trust, and reciprocity. Children and adolescents are most likely to become friends with others with whom they interact frequently (e.g., sit together at school), and who are similar to them in terms of interests, personality, achievement level, and values. Bullying, or peer victimization, refers to the chronic negative actions by one child toward another. These negative actions may involve physical, verbal, or relational aggression, and involve an imbalance of power where the bully is more powerful than the victim (Olweus, 1993). Verbal and relational bullying may occur face-to-face or online (cyber-bullying). Assessment of peer relations in CLD children and adolescents is important for several reasons. First, peer rejection is a major indicator of current psychological adjustment in children and predicts adult functioning in terms of employment and need for psychiatric care (e.g., Chen et al., 2004a; Schneider et al., 1994). Second, in children and adolescents, anxiety and depression are both predictors and sequelae of victimization by peers (Boivin, Hymel, & Burkowski, 1995; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Swearer, Grills, Haye, & Tam Cary, 2004). Third, children and adolescents who are perpetrators of bullying are more aggressive than other children. Fourth, children and adolescents with learning disabilities (LD) and ADHD are at risk for being rejected or neglected by peers (e.g., Hoza et al., 2005; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990), as well as victims and perpetrators of bullying (Timmermanis & Wiener, 2011; Wiener & Mak, 2009). Fifth, children and adolescents who are recent immigrants and refugees initially tend to have limited social networks, which adds to their risk for depressive disorders (Strohmeier, Kärnä, & Salmivalli, 2011). However, having cross-ethnic/racial friendships is a

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

187

protective factor in terms of relational victimization (Kawabata & Crick, 2011) and is associated with positive social skills (e.g., leadership, empathy; Kawabata & Crick, 2008). Sixth, in some contexts, immigrant and refugee youth who live in communities that are characterized by poverty and who feel that there is little hope for advancement may become members of deviant peer groups or gangs that are involved in crime and act aggressively toward others who are not part of their group (e.g., Fandrem, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2009; Fandrem, Ertesvåg, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2010). Finally, immigrant and refugee children and adolescents may be victimized by peers who come from the dominant culture in the society. This is most likely to occur in communities where there are few CLD families (Strohmeier et al., 2011). Although most broad-band self-report, parent and teacher rating scales (e.g., ASEBA, Conners Rating scales, SDQ) have social problems or peer relations subscales, these scales typically measure social skills, peer acceptance and rejection, loneliness, friendship, and bullying together. They may provide a valid screening to determine whether further assessment is necessary, but do not help to describe the nature of the problem, or to suggest strategies for intervention. Peer sociometrics are the gold standard for assessing peer acceptance; they are impractical, however, in most clinical situations because they require entire classrooms to provide consent for assessment. Therefore, in most cases, this can only be assessed by self-report, parent, and teacher ratings. We suggest that the assessment of peer relations should focus on friendships, in part because children and adolescents who have high-quality friendships are less likely than other children to be victimized by peers (e.g., Card & Hodges, 2008), or to be anxious and depressed. Furthermore, this assessment can be easily accomplished by interviewing the children (age 8 years or older) or teens, and asking parents and/or teachers to fill out a simple questionnaire or answer a few questions in a face-to-face interview. In this respect, it is important to be mindful of the fact that the definition of “friend” may be somewhat fluid; therefore, some flexibility is prudent. Table 8.1 is a record form for these methods that has been adapted from Wiener and Schneider (2002) and Wiener and Sunohara (1998). Psychologists using the interview form shown in Table 8.1 should ask children and adolescents to tell them the first names and last initials of their best friends or close friends. Interviewers should note whether the children readily come up with these names, and actually know the last initial. Interviewers should then proceed to ask the gender and age of each friend; where they met; where they currently interact, if at all; how long they have known each other; and how long they have been friends. Psychologists should then ask the questions in the footnote to Table 8.1 to ascertain who is the child’s closest friend and find out about the quality of that friendship. Parents and teachers also indicate the names and last initials of the child’s friends, as this corroboration is highly correlated with reciprocal friendship nominations by the friends themselves (Wiener & Schneider, 2002). Unless they are very recent immigrants, children who have no

Table 8.1 Friendship Interview for Children and Adolescents (Ages 8 to 18 Years) Interviewers should first ask the child or adolescent the names of their close or best friends and list the first names and initials in the columns in row 1. Then ask questions 2 through 12 about each friend, if the question seems appropriate. 1. Tell me the names of your close friends. You can tell me about close friends who are or are not at your school. 2. Is __ male or female? 3. How old is ____? 4. When did you first meet __? 5. When did you and ___ become close friends? 6. Where did you first meet ____?a 6a. Have you and ____ ever met in person? 6b. Is ___ a student in your school now?

188

6c. Do you have classes with ______? 7. About how often do you and ____ communicate online (e.g., chat, social networking sites, e-mail)? 8. About how often do you and ___ talk on the phone or send text messages? 9a. About how often do you spend time with ______ outside school? 9b. Where do you get together with ____? 10. Did ___ or his/her parents immigrate to ___ from the same country as you did? 11. Does ___ speak (indicate language)? 12. Is ___ a member of your family? Online: Answer 6a; School: Answer 6b–c; Other (specify): Go to 7. You said that (name friends) are your close friends. Who do you feel closest to? Would you say he/she is your best friend? Describe your friendship with ____ (name closest/best friend)? Probes: Do you and ___ help each other out? Do you and ___ tell each other secrets or share how you feel about things? Do you and ___ have the same interests? Are you and ___ happy for each other when something good happens to either of you? How often do you and ___ argue? When you argue, is it easy to make up?

a

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

189

mutual or corroborated friends are at risk for social and emotional adjustment problems. Some CLD children who have recently arrived in the immigrant-receiving country may have friends whom they have left behind, and feel lonely in their new environment. Given the grave consequences, and the increased risk of CLD children and adolescents being a bully or a victim, it is important to establish whether CLD children who are being assessed are involved in bullying, as well as the nature of that involvement. They may not immediately disclose bullying due to feelings of stigma, as well as concern that this disclosure will lead to increased peer victimization if they are victims and punishment by adults if they are bullies. Once trust is established, however, the interview described in Table 8.2 can be used as a guide to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the child’s experience of being a perpetrator or victim of bullying. This interview was adapted from an unpublished questionnaire developed by Timmermanis and Wiener (2012) and consists of items from the following published measures: the Safe Schools Questionnaire (Craig, 1998), California Bullying Victimization Scale (Felix, Sharkey, Green, Furlong, & Tanigawa, 2011), Pacific-Rim Bullying Measure (Taki, Slee, Sim, Hymel, & Pepler, 2006), and Safe Schools Survey (Totten, Quigley, & Morgan, 2004). A comprehensive assessment of peer relations can lead to intervention for specific CLD students. They may benefit, for example, from teachers scaffolding their acquisition of friendships by seating them near other students who are potential friends, or actually designating a buddy who will volunteer to help them integrate into the peer network. We have found that providing an older high school or university student mentor can be helpful in terms of assisting CLD children and adolescents with acquiring the skills they need to make friends in the immigrant-receiving country. In some cases, the children or teens may not have friends in the immigrant-receiving country, but communicate electronically with close friends in their country of origin. They may need to be encouraged to diversify their friendships. Children and adolescents who are victimized may especially benefit from this assistance to develop a friendship network in the immigrant-receiving country. Establishing their interests and encouraging them to join clubs or groups that focus on those interests may be helpful. Their parents, who might value academic achievement more than friendship, may need some counseling about the importance of their children having close friends for their psychological well-being and academic achievement. Systemic approaches that require community involvement may be needed to assist aggressive teens who are involved in racially or ethnically defined gangs. Several of the case studies described in the Appendix illustrate various aspects of peer relations of CLD children and adolescents. Remarkably, Amy (Appendix Case Study 1) was accepted by peers in spite of the fact that she did not speak at school. We hypothesize that this might change if her selective mutism were not addressed because as girls get older, their peer interactions are centered around conversation. Boris (Appendix Case Study 2) was rejected by

190

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.2 Bullying Interview Students can be very mean to one another at school. Mean and negative behavior can be upsetting and embarrassing when it happens over and over again. We want to know about your experience with this. A. VICTIM 1. Have there been any times when other kids have been mean to you? Tell me about this: Probes: O
By

pushing, hitting, kicking, or physically hurting you

O
By

stealing things from you or damaging your property

O
By

teasing, calling you names, or saying mean things to you

O
By

spreading rumors, gossiping behind your back, or getting others not to like you

O
By

not letting you be part of the group or play the game they are playing, or by ignoring you on purpose

O
By

making sexual comments or gestures at you

O
By

using e-mail, social network sites, or text messages

2. Who was mean and negative to you in these ways? Probes: O
Classmates,

O
Boys,

friends, boyfriend/girlfriend, other

girls

O
People

younger than you, same age, older than you

O
People

from another race, group, or gang

(continued )

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

191

Table 8.2 Bullying Interview (continued) 3. Why do you think people did these mean and negative things to you? Probes: Because O
Of

your religion, skin color, country you or your family came from

O
You

don’t speak (the language of the immigrant-receiving country) very well

O
You

have a learning disability, physical disability, ADHD, other disability

O
You

are a boy or girl

O
Of

your sexual orientation

O
You

do well in school

O
School

is hard for you

O
Of

the way you look, your height, weight, or your body shape

O
Of

how you dress

O
You

behave differently from other people

O
You

have interests that are different from most other students

O
Of

how little money you have

O
They

O
Of

want to take your money or things

your physical weakness, not good in sports

O
You

seem to be anxious and fearful

O
You

seem to be sad or withdrawn

(continued )

192

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.2 Bullying Interview (continued) O
The

other people in your school are really mean

O
This

sort of thing happens at your school all the time—school has a lot of tough kids

O
Teachers

O
Some

O
The

and principals do nothing to prevent it

other people in your school think it’s funny to hurt people

person who did this to you wanted to feel powerful and popular

4. Think of the last time kids did mean or negative things to you? What did you do? Probes: O
Ignored

O
Burst

it

into tears

O
Told

somebody—friend, parent, teacher, brother/sister, conflict mediator, other student, other adult at school (who?)

O
Skipped

school for one or more days

O
Fought

back by hitting, kicking, or trying to physically hurt the person; arguing, yelling, or saying hurtful things to the person; sending out mean messages on a social networking site or e-mail

O
Got

someone to help stop it

O
Got

back at them later

(continued )

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

193

Table 8.2 Bullying Interview (continued) 5. If you did not do anything, what was the reason? Probes: O
Afraid

O
Did

or felt threatened

not know what to do or who to talk to

O
Nobody

would do anything about it if I told someone

O
It

wasn’t so bad

O
If

I told someone it would have gotten worse

B. BULLY (Probes same as for Part A) 1. Have there been any times when you have been mean or negative to other kids on purpose? Tell me about this. What did you do? Additional Probe: Did you do this alone or with other kids? Who were these other kids? 2. Who did you do these mean things to? 3. Why did you do these mean things? 4. What did the other kids do after you did these things? 5. Did you get caught by adults doing these mean or negative things? Probe: What happened to you when you got caught? Was there a punishment? What was it?

ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Adapted from Comprehensive Bullying Questionnaire, Timmermanis & Wiener (2012).

peers because of his social immaturity and because he engaged in behaviors that his peers viewed as aversive. Although Diego (Appendix Case Study 3) was accepted by his peers in Grade 6, when we followed up with him in Grade 8 he was beginning to associate with a deviant peer group. Khalil (Appendix Case Study 4) had unstable friendships; his peer relations might have been affected by attending a private school where high-academic achievement was valued, and by his withdrawal once he found it difficult to cope academically. Changgun/ Brandon (Appendix Case Study 5) had many close friendships with an ethnically

194

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

diverse group of peers, but because of cultural factors, his mother disapproved of him spending time with them. Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6) was popular with her peers in spite of her severe LD. This popularity is likely because of her excellent social skills and leadership abilities, and being a champion athlete. She also attended a vocational high school where academic achievement is not highly valued by the peer group.

STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS AND DISORDERS Inattentive and Hyperactive–Impulsive Behaviors Children and adolescents vary in terms of their ability to focus on tasks and sustain attention. Inattention is a stable characteristic, and is associated with low-academic achievement and social problems (see Spira & Fischel, 2005 for review). High levels of inattention, typically in conjunction with hyperactivity and impulsivity, are a major criterion for a diagnosis of ADHD. According to the DSM-5, ADHD is a chronic and pervasive pattern of developmentally inappropriate levels of inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and impulsivity beginning in early childhood and typically persisting over the lifespan. In order to receive a diagnosis, children and adolescents are required to have the requisite number of core symptoms (six of either inattention or hyperactivity– impulsivity for children 16 years and under, and five for adolescents and adults age 17 years or more) that are persistent in two or more settings. There must also be evidence of significant impairment in areas of their lives such as academic achievement (e.g., Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007) or peer relationships (e.g., Marton, Wiener, Rogers, & Moore, 2012; Normand et al., 2011; Wiener & Mak, 2009). Their symptoms typically have considerable impact on family functioning and are associated with high levels of parenting stress (e.g., Johnston & Mash, 2001; Theule, Wiener, Jenkins, & Tannock, 2013). In addition, children and adolescents with ADHD often have executive functioning deficits in working memory, planning, organizing, and/or shifting (e.g., Langberg, Dvorsky, & Evans, 2013; Martinussen, Hayden, Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005) but these deficits are not a requirement for diagnosis. In the DSM-IV, ADHD was classified as a disruptive behavior disorder. The DSM-5 reclassified ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder, along with specific learning disorder and ASD, based on the significant neurobiological research showing its heritability and neurological basis (e.g., Tannock, 2013; Willcutt et al., 2010). Although the core symptoms of the disorder have not changed, the DSM-5 added examples of these symptoms that reflect behaviors typical of adolescents and adults with the disorder, changed the cut-off age for emergence of the disorder to age 12 years (it was age 7 years in the DSM-IV), reduced the number of symptoms in each of the inattention and hyperactivity–impulsivity

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

195

categories required for a diagnosis from 6 to 5 for individuals who are 17 years or older, and removed the exclusion of ASD as an explanation for symptoms. The DSM-5 no longer requires that a subtype be indicated. Instead, psychologists specify whether the presentation is predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive–impulsive, or combined. They must also specify severity in terms of number of symptoms and degree of impairment. Tannock (2013) provides an in-depth discussion of the rationale for these decisions. The research supports the position articulated in the DSM-5 that differences in ADHD prevalence rates across regions of the world are mainly attributable to diagnostic and methodological practices, but that there may be cultural differences in the attitudes of parents and teachers toward ADHD behaviors and treatment. According to a study on prevalence of ADHD worldwide, the pooled prevalence is 5.29% (Polanczyk, de Lima, Horta, Biederman, & Rohde, 2007). Prevalence rates reported by studies in North America, however, are higher than those in the Middle East and Africa. These differences may be due to different diagnostic and methodological practices. ADHD, however, is primarily diagnosed on the basis of parent and teacher report. The prevalence may vary if there are cultural differences in perceptions of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, or the degree to which struggles with academic achievement and social relationships are construed as impairing in a specific society (El-Hassan Al-Awad & Sonuga-Barke, 2002). This is also likely true for immigrants in OECD immigrant-receiving countries. For example, in a study conducted in the Netherlands, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Turkish immigrant parents underestimated levels of ADHD and other externalizing behaviors compared to Dutch parents (Zwirs, Burger, Buitelaar, & Schulpen, 2006). It is important to note, however, that Polanczyk and colleagues (2007) did not find differences in prevalence estimates between Europe and North America. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that ADHD symptoms tend to cluster similarly in North America and European countries (Döpfner et al., 2006; Toplak et al., 2012). The results of several studies suggest that ADHD is a disorder that occurs across ethnic groups (see Bauermeister, Canino, Polanczyk, & Rohde, 2010 for review) and that it is possible to diagnose ADHD in CLD children and adolescents. In spite of ADHD being classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder, the correlations between cognitive measures of attention and inhibition and behavioral measures of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity are low (Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2012). Therefore, the three major methods for diagnosing ADHD are direct observation, semi-structured or structured diagnostic interviews with parents and teachers, and standardized rating scales completed by parents, teachers, and older children and adolescents. One of the controversies in the field is whether it is sufficient to use parent and teacher rating scales of ADHD symptoms to diagnose the disorder (Collett, Ohan, & Myers, 2003; Pelham, Fabiano, & Massetti, 2005). Although most of these scales reliably detect ADHD symptoms in children, they do not measure impairment thoroughly. Furthermore, as

196

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

previously discussed, it is challenging to determine what CLD parents understand by the items. For example, in a study designed to assess the equivalence of Sudanese and North American versions of the Conners’ Rating Scales, El-Hassan Al-Awad and Sonuga-Barke (2002) found that, in spite of acceptable reliability of the Sudanese scale, there were several differences that minimized its validity, with the most important being very low levels of behavioral problems reported. In accordance with Mash and Hunsley’s (2007) recommendations, and the DSM-5 criterion that ADHD symptoms must occur in two or more settings, it is important to use multiple methods and informants to assess ADHD. Standardized rating scales of ADHD symptoms and symptoms of common cooccurring disorders, such as the Conners Rating Scales—Third Edition (Conners, 2008), provide norms and should be administered in contexts where these norms are valid, parents comprehend the items, and they are able to provide ratings on a Likerttype scale (Collett et al., 2003; Pelham et al., 2005). In cases where the norms are not valid, psychologists must rely more heavily on behavioral observation in assessment sessions, classroom observation, and parent and teacher interviewing. We illustrate these strategies in the case descriptions of Khalil (Appendix Case Study 4) and Changgun/Brandon (Appendix Case Study 5). In assessment sessions, psychologists should look for children’s ability to focus on the tasks at hand and sustain attention, especially when tasks require mental effort. Many children and adolescents with ADHD make careless mistakes; this is especially evident on math calculation tests where they may add instead of subtract, even though they know the meaning of the sign. Some children need frequent redirection in order to attend to task. Hyperactivity may manifest in moving around the assessment room instead of staying seated, and incessant fidgeting. Some children also respond impulsively to questions, sometimes responding before the question or directions are completed. In the case of mild ADHD, however, inattention and hyperactive–impulsive symptoms may not be evident in assessment sessions where there are few, if any, distractions, directions are explicit, and tasks are structured. The requirement to remember to bring materials and keep them organized is also significantly reduced as parents may bring children to the sessions and take care of the things they need. ADHD symptoms may be more evident in the classroom where the environment is noisier, there are many visual distractions, and there is a greater demand for independence and self-regulation. Given that children and adolescents with ADHD typically attend school for 20 or more hours per week and have significant academic impairment, it is critical to include teacher observations of behavior in formulating a diagnosis (Tannock, 2013). Teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms can be achieved by using scales such as the Conners Rating Scales and ADHD Rating Scale, both of which have been validated in several countries (e.g., Döpfner et al., 2006; Wolraich et al., 2003). Although this might achieve the goal of determining whether symptoms are present, it does not achieve several other diagnostic goals such as determining under

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

197

what conditions the symptoms occur, which is necessary for planning interventions, determining the degree to which the symptoms are impairing and in what areas, and assessing teachers’ attitudes toward the symptoms and therefore their readiness to implement interventions. Tannock, Hum, Masellis, Humphries, and Schachar (2002) developed the Teacher Telephone Interview for ADHD and Related Disorders-DSM-IV Version (TTI) that accomplishes all of these goals. The TTI is a semi-structured interview that is typically conducted by telephone, although school psychologists can administer it face-to-face with teachers. The manual for this interview may be obtained from the Internet. The interview involves an assessment of the demands of the classroom, a review of symptoms, and an analysis of the impact of those symptoms on child functioning at school in terms of academic progress, placing a burden on the teacher, and disturbing peers. When administering this interview, the psychologist asks the teacher to give a comprehensive description of the child’s behavior in several situations that are typical in the school environment (e.g., arrival routines, lessons to the whole class, seatwork). The teacher, however, does not rate those symptoms in terms of frequency or severity—the psychologist makes this judgment on the basis of the description. In addition, symptoms are operationalized with exemplars that are typical of the classroom context. Thus, for the symptom often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in school work, work, or other activities, psychologists would ask the following questions: What is the quality of ___’s work? How much care does ____ put into his/her work? Does ___ lose marks for careless errors? Does ___ find it difficult to pay attention to what needs to be done? Evidence suggesting the presence of this symptom, according to the TTI manual, would be statements such as Omits required details; Rushes through work or activities, or slow and last to finish, but makes silly mistakes; Sloppy work, but has ability to print/write neatly; Not proofreading/checking work. We recommend that psychologists employ the TTI as one of the tools to diagnose ADHD in CLD children and adolescents, but that some of the probes be modified to take into account the need to adapt to a new school environment in the case of new immigrants or refugees, problems with OLP for those who are learning in their second language (L2), and behaviors that might suggest possible posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, the interpretation of teacher descriptions might have to be adjusted. Children who have minimal skills in the language of the classroom may not be able to sustain attention; they may appear not to be listening, avoid tasks, and fail to finish work. In addition, they may be restless and fidgety because they are not able to follow what is going on. Children who have never been to school, or have had sporadic schooling in a refugee camp, may not have mastered basic routines and as a result appear inattentive. Thus, in some cases, these apparent symptoms of ADHD may in fact reflect language and educational experiences. The Parent Interview for Child Symptoms (PICS-6; Hospital for Sick Children, 2013) is a semi-structured companion interview to the TTI, and has been

198

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

modified to conform to DSM-5 criteria. The PICS-6 may be obtained from the Internet. Parents are asked to describe children’s behavior in several contexts such as playing outdoors, playing indoors alone, playing indoors with a parent, playing indoors with peers or siblings, doing homework, and sitting at the dinner table. It is designed to obtain concrete and specific descriptions of behavior in these contexts. The interviewer first asks a general question (e.g., What does ___ like to do when he is playing alone inside?). Once the parent responds, this question is followed by What does she/he like when doing this? The interviewer then follows up with probes (e.g., If I were watching ___ play alone, what would I see? When was the last time you saw ___ doing that? What did you see or hear?) if necessary to get a complete description. The PICS-6, however, does not include descriptions of behaviors in contexts where there might be considerable conflict such as getting ready for school and bedtime. For some immigrant parents who work long hours and do shift work, these may be the main times they observe their children. Although the interview can be administered with an interpreter, the language level might have to be modified in some cases. For assessing ADHD and cooccurring internalizing and externalizing behavioral disorders in CLD children, we are recommending the PICS-6 and the TTI over structured interviews and rating scales, in spite of the length of time these scales require for administration and the increased skill level required for interviewers. These interviews are consistent with the principles of the DSA approach, and have several advantages. First, they provide comprehensive descriptions of children’s behaviors, the contexts in which they occur, and parents’ and teachers’ thoughts and feelings about these behaviors. Second, possible cultural differences in judgments about the severity or inappropriateness of specific behaviors are minimized using these procedures because interviewers make the decisions about severity and frequency. Third, while keeping with the principles of the interview, it is relatively easy to modify questions to accommodate the vocabulary and education level of parents and their different home environments. As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, it is important to decide who is the child’s primary caregiver and sensitively request that this person be present at the interview and elicit his or her descriptions.

Externalizing Behaviors Children and adolescents are frequently referred to psychologists due to problems such as aggression and noncompliance (e.g., Changgun/Brandon, Appendix Case Study 5). In some cases, the assessment is initiated by teachers, and in other cases by parents. Rating scales such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF), or the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) may confirm that the child meets clinical cut-offs, but due to cultural differences in views about the appropriateness of these behaviors, the results of these scales may or may not be valid. Although the

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

199

PICS-6 and the TTI have modules for assessing externalizing behaviors, these semi-structured interviews can be supplemented by behavioral observations and more specific interviews when needed. Some children are noncompliant when psychologists work with them in the assessment sessions, refusing to do tasks that do not appeal to them or that concern them because they think they are difficult. In this context, psychologists can observe the situations where children do and do not comply. They may be agreeable to do tasks that involve visual–spatial skills, but resist those that involve language (or vice versa); they may comply on the easy items at the beginning of subtests measuring cognitive and academic skills but refuse to continue on harder items; they may respond when tasks are embedded in a game, but not when they are assessed directly; they may be compliant at the beginning of sessions and become noncompliant when their attention wanes. Some may respond to encouragement and praise, whereas others may require the promise of tangible rewards for doing what is required. In situations where children are brought to the clinic by parents, psychologists can observe whether they comply with parent requests to take off or put on outer garments, or stop playing with a toy or electronic device to go with the psychologist. Some children will beg for food or a treat. Although it happens rarely, psychologists may observe some children being physically aggressive toward their parents; more often, they are verbally aggressive or argue. In some cases, the arguments may be in the L1, but the nonverbal cues may convey a conflict and the level of emotion in the discussion. When possible, it is helpful to observe children with externalizing difficulties in the school context, including both classroom and playground. (This is not typically feasible with adolescents who may be embarrassed about having an adult follow them as they change classes throughout the school day.) Psychologists should arrange to come at the beginning of the day when children must follow routines such as taking off their outer garments and hanging them up, getting their materials, sitting in the appropriate place, listening to opening ceremonies, and beginning their work. Psychologists might observe whether they follow these routines spontaneously, do so when directed by the teacher, ignore the teacher’s instructions, or refuse to comply. Given that children quickly acquire BICS, and the daily routines and beginning of the day instructions are repetitive, they likely are being noncompliant when they do not follow them, unless they have immigrated recently. In the classroom, psychologists should look for situations where children attend to tasks, do the required work, and comply with teacher instructions versus those where children are off-task, disruptive, noncompliant, and physically or verbally aggressive. In the playground, psychologists should observe peer interactions, including social withdrawal and verbal and physical aggression. As with cognitive and academic tests, children’s behavior may vary according to task type and difficulty, as well as time of day. Psychologists should observe what teachers do to prevent noncompliant, aggressive, and disruptive

200

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

behavior. Are the teachers constantly observing the children in the classroom and playground so that they can catch stimuli that might elicit problem behaviors as soon as they occur or stop problem behaviors such as conflicts before they escalate? Do they differentiate instruction so that children are consistently working in their zone of proximal development? Do they praise children for complying and for being on-task? What are the consequences for off-task, disruptive, aggressive, and noncompliant behavior? Throughout the course of these observations, psychologists should try to determine the function of the problem behavior, including avoidance of tasks that the child perceives are too difficult, attention-seeking, not understanding the language of instruction, overstimulation, and challenges with attending for the length of a lesson. In addition to getting teachers’ ratings of levels of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors, it is also important to assess their thoughts and feelings about these behaviors in an interview. They might attribute children’s or adolescents’ noncompliant, aggressive, and disruptive behavior to task avoidance due to struggles with the curriculum, to the need for attention because families are struggling so hard to make ends meet that they do not have time or energy to provide for more than basic needs, or to intentional provocation. Teachers’ emotions and responses will vary depending on these attributions (Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010). Teachers who attribute these problem behaviors to students intentionally trying to annoy them may feel angry and react punitively (even if they do not do so when the psychologist is observing). Teachers who believe that children are unable to control the behaviors or that they may be due to factors in the home may need to be convinced that they are capable of changing the behaviors in the classroom with an appropriate proactive behavior plan. Assessment of the children’s and families’ attributions and emotions with regard to the children’s externalizing behaviors aids in the development of a formulation and recommendations for intervention. Interviews are the main method for doing so. There are several interview strategies that psychologists should use when parents describe a child’s behavior that concerns them, or when a teacher refers the child due to externalizing behaviors. These strategies are, in part, based on behavioral assessment procedures used in developing proactive behavioral interventions (e.g., Ducharme, Davidson, & Rushford, 2002). In order to establish the nature of the problem behaviors as well as to understand the family context, it is often helpful to ask parents to describe a typical school day and weekend day or holiday. Some parents may not be able to provide a full description of a regular weekday or weekend day because they work very long hours, and seldom interact with their children. Most parents, however, are able to give rich descriptions. They may describe struggles to get the child up, or to have the child follow routines such as getting dressed, brushing teeth, and eating breakfast in a timely manner. The child may protest about going to school. When the child comes home, there may be conflicts about homework. Some children may be noisy, aggressive toward siblings, and disruptive in the

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

201

home. Bedtime and mealtime may also be challenging, as children with externalizing problems will often refuse to comply with requests in these situations. Psychologists may then probe by asking several questions, such as those presented in Table 8.3 about noncompliance, aggressive, and disruptive behavior. These questions, which are not meant to be exhaustive of the topic or asked in the same order, are phrased in concrete language to aid comprehension for families who do not speak the language of the host country very well, or who are not highly educated. They can be asked with the assistance of an interpreter. Depending on the parent’s responses, the psychologist might wonder whether the requests are reasonable for the child’s developmental stage, whether the parent is considering the child’s needs when making the request, or whether the expectation for immediate compliance is excessive (e.g., the parent makes too many challenging requests without considering the child’s need for play and downtime). The psychologist should also consider whether the high expectation for compliance is culturally normative but excessive in the context of the immigrant-receiving country, especially if there is no concern about noncompliant behavior at school. In the case of an older child or adolescent, might they perceive that their friends do not have to do the things they are asked to do or that children or teens in the immigrant-receiving country sometimes argue with their parents (see Changgun/Brandon, Appendix Case Study 5)? The psychologist might then want to interview the child to understand his or her thoughts and feelings about compliance interactions. Similar questions to those posed to parents might be asked of an older child or adolescent. It may be helpful to ask about cultural differences in the immigrant-receiving country if the child does not confide that spontaneously. Psychologists who work in hospitals and other clinical settings may be required to provide a DSM-5 diagnosis to explain disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders (APA, 2013). Psychologists who work in schools might have to diagnose children in a way that fits in with the categories delineated by the education system (i.e., school district, Ministry of Education). Although it may be necessary to provide these diagnoses to ensure that special education supports and treatment are provided, it is important to be cognizant that these diagnostic categories may sometimes not reflect the key issues that are impinging on children’s behavioral, social, and emotional functioning. With regard to DSM-5, the specific behavioral criteria for oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder are clearly defined in the manual, which also states that these clusters of behaviors occur across cultures. Although the DSM describes risk factors for these disorders, these risk factors are not intended to imply causation. Therefore, these diagnoses can be given if the requisite number of symptoms are evident and are impairing to the individual child or adolescent or having a negative impact on others. That said, psychologists should be cautious about giving these diagnoses in certain situations and should articulate their reservations.

202

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.3 Questions to Consider Asking Parents When Assessing Noncompliance and Aggression Noncompliance 1. Are there things that your child always does when you ask him/her to (e.g., eat your cookie)?

2. Are there things that your child seldom does when you ask him/her to (e.g., turn off the TV and go to bed)?

3. How often does your child not listen to you when you ask him/her to do things?

4. Give me an example of something that you asked your child to do that he/she did not listen to recently? What did you say to him/her? What did he/she do (e.g., just ignore parent, argue, call parent a name)?

5. Why do you believe that your child is often not doing what you ask him/her to do? a. Do you think that there is something about the thing you ask him/her to do that makes him/her not listen? Could it be that he/she does not listen when you ask him or her to do something that’s hard for him or her? that is boring? that he/she is not interested in? because he/she is tired or hungry or sad? b. Is it possible that he/she does not do what he or she is told because he/she is concentrating on something else and does not even hear what you say? c. Do you think that there is something about who asks him/her to do it (e.g., mother vs.father)? d. Does he/she refuse to do something you ask him/her to because he/she is doing something else he/she likes better? e. Do you think he/she can control him/herself when he/she refuses to do something? (continued )

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

203

Table 8.3 Questions to Consider Asking Parents When Assessing Noncompliance and Aggression (continued) 6. Do you believe that other kids are better at listening to what their parents ask them to do than your son/daughter?

7. Does his/her teacher complain that he/she does not listen?

8. Does it bother you when he/she doesn’t listen? What are your feelings?

9. What do you do when he/she doesn’t listen to you? How does he/she react then?

10. In your family/culture, is it acceptable for a child to not listen to his or her parents?

11. What would/did your parents tell you to do when your son/daughter behaves this way? Do you agree with them?

Anger and Aggression 12. Does your son/daughter get angry very often?

13. What situations make him/her angry? Probes: Not getting what he/she wants, not being able to do something that is hard for him/her, think that something is meant to annoy or hurt him/her when it is really an accident.

(continued )

204

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.3 Questions to Consider Asking Parents When Assessing Noncompliance and Aggression (continued) 14. How often does he/she get angry?

15. What does he/she do when he/she is angry? Probes: Yell at people, physical aggression, tantrum, destroy property

16. Do you think he/she can control his/her anger?

17. How often does your son/daughter fight with his/her brother or sister?

18. Is this fighting mostly arguing or do they fight physically? Tell me about a fight that happened recently.

19. Does anyone get hurt?

20. Does your son/daughter hit you or your spouse? Tell me about a time when that happened. What happened before he/she hit you, and what did you do?

21. Are you or your spouse afraid of him/her?

22. What do you do when he/she gets angry and fights with people?

(continued )

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

205

Table 8.3 Questions to Consider Asking Parents When Assessing Noncompliance and Aggression (continued) 23. When he/she is no longer angry, what does he/she do? Probes: Apologize, justify his/her actions

24. Does the teacher or principal tell you that he/she fights at school?

25. What do the teacher or principal do when he/she fights?

26. Are you concerned that he/she will be kicked out of school or have to go to a special class or school because of fighting?

27. Are you concerned that he/she will get in trouble with the law?

With regard to oppositional defiant disorder, a diagnosis might be given with the severity specifier of mild if the symptoms are confined to only one setting. As previously discussed, there may be cultural differences in parents’ expectations for compliance and emotional expression that influence their reporting of symptoms, and there may be high levels of conflict in homes where children and adolescents are more acculturated to the immigrant-receiving country than their parents, as shown in the Changgun/Brandon case study (Appendix Case Study 5). Parents may then describe their children as often losing their temper, being angry and resentful, refusing to comply with requests, and arguing with authority figures within the last 6 months, which would mean that they meet Criterion A for the diagnosis. The impairment criterion (Criterion B), which includes “causing distress to others in his or her immediate social context” (p. 462), would also be met, and the exclusions listed in Criterion C would likely not apply. It would therefore be prudent to consider whether the diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder is appropriate and should be communicated in written reports due to the stigma associated with it.

206

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

With regard to intermittent explosive disorder, the DSM-5 states that individuals with a history of physical and emotional trauma, and children and adolescents who are refugees from war-torn countries, are at increased risk. Consequently, psychologists should ask questions to determine whether these challenging behaviors are associated with previous trauma. The DSM-5 (p. 474) indicates that a “Conduct disorder diagnosis may at times be potentially misapplied to individuals in settings where patterns of disruptive behavior are viewed as near-normative (e.g., in very threatening, high crime areas or war zones).” Clearly the context for these behaviors should be considered in giving this diagnosis. The following discussion about assessment of PTSD in children and adolescents might be applicable to children from war-torn countries who display symptoms of conduct disorder or intermittent explosive disorder (see Diego, Appendix Case Study 3).

Internalizing Behaviors Similar to externalizing behavior disorders, CLD children’s challenges with mood and anxiety may not be evident in scores on self-report rating scales or those completed by parents and teachers. Therefore, using multiple sources of information and multiple methods is important. As indicated in the case of Amy (Appendix Case Study 1), anxious children may display their anxiety in the assessment sessions by being reluctant to separate from parents or leave their classrooms (if the assessment is done at school), refusing to answer questions unless they are confident that their responses are correct, and asking for frequent feedback. They may have sweaty palms, talk in a soft voice, and not establish eye contact. Some children may cry when asked to do something they feel they are not able to do. Children who have mood problems may be easily fatigued, be reluctant to put forth effort on challenging tasks and may become upset easily. They may express sentiments such as, “I can’t do anything right; everyone hates me; nothing in my life is fun; it might be better if I die.” In some cultures, however, it may be seen as inappropriate to talk spontaneously to an adult in an authority position (Carter et al., 2005). Children from these cultural groups may therefore be reluctant to speak spontaneously or elaborate on responses; this should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of anxiety or depressed mood. Children who are highly anxious or have a depressed mood may not disclose their feelings until they feel very comfortable with the psychologist doing the assessment. As previously discussed, beginning an assessment with a standardized diagnostic interview may increase their discomfort and not elicit valuable information. Instead, for some children it may be helpful to administer cognitive and academic tests prior to informally assessing their social and emotional functioning. Others respond to strategies such as playing a game. Techniques such as a Kinetic Family Drawing, sentence completions, asking

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

207

them to list 10 words that tell about them, and to talk about three wishes may be helpful in eliciting their feelings. Manassis et al. (2009) developed a computerized task where children are asked to endorse whether they feel like an animated character; this might be helpful for children whose limited L2 prevents them from expressing how they feel. This measure, however, has not been evaluated cross-culturally, and, as discussed in Chapter 4, there are cultural differences in emotional expression. Although children may display behaviors consistent with anxiety and depression at home and at school, parents and teachers might not interpret these behaviors accordingly. Children who are highly anxious or have depressed mood, for example, may engage in avoidance behavior and as a result be viewed as noncompliant. Therefore, the questions listed in Table 8.3 regarding compliance may also be appropriate. In interpreting the responses, psychologists should determine whether these behaviors most often occur to avoid something that might induce anxiety, such as a challenging task or a situation that is somewhat risky. Parents of CLD children may also describe problems with sleeping, eating, separation (e.g., will not sleep in own bed), social withdrawal, lack of enjoyment of typically enjoyable activities (anhedonia), low self-esteem, negative mood, and interpersonal problems, but not attribute them to anxiety or depression. When anxiety or depression is suspected, the questions listed in Table 8.4 might be asked in interviews with children and parents. These questions, which are not meant to be exhaustive or asked in the same order, are phrased in concrete language to aid comprehension for families who do not speak the language of the host country very well, or who are not highly educated. They can be asked with the assistance of an interpreter. Although likely not sufficient to do a complete DSM-5 diagnosis, they assess the major features of various anxiety and depressive disorders. Further probing may be necessary to delineate specific phobias, and to determine severity of anxiety and negative mood, persistence of the problem, and degree of impairment. It is important to be aware that mild anxiety, loneliness, and depressed mood may be normal responses to leaving home and extended family as well as coming to a new country with a different language and culture (see Khalil, Appendix Case Study 4). Nevertheless, many children, including those who are refugees, are optimistic, happy they are safe, look for things that are familiar (e.g., children here play soccer/football just like at home), and embrace the opportunity to be exposed to new experiences (Almqvist & Broberg, 1999; Ehntholt & Yule, 2006). The DSM-5 provides brief discussions of cultural issues that pertain to diagnoses of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, including separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder. With regard to separation anxiety disorder, there are cultural differences in the value placed on independence and interdependence. In some cultures, children are not left at home with anyone other than a family

208

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.4 Questions to Assess Anxiety and Depression 1. What are the things your son/daughter likes to do?

2. Are there things he/she used to like to do but now does not seem to?

3. What are the things your son/daughter does not like to do?

4. What are the things your son/daughter refuses to do even when you tell him/her to do these things?

5. Why do you think he/she refuses to do these things? Probes: Is he/she afraid? Stubborn? Is it hard for him/her?

6. If you make him/her do these things, how does he/she react? Probes: Gets very upset, cries, tantrums, complains that he/she is sick (headache, stomach ache).

7. What do you do then?

8. Does your son/daughter believe that he/she is a good person?

9. Does he/she feel proud when he/she does something well?

(continued )

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

209

Table 8.4 Questions to Assess Anxiety and Depression (continued) 10. All children are afraid of some things. What things are your son/daughter afraid of?

11. Does your son/daughter like to talk with other children? Adults?

12. Does he/she talk a lot at home? Who does he/she talk to? What language does he/she speak when he/she talks?

13. Is he/she shy?

14. When you are spending time with family and friends and there are other children there, does he/she talk with them and play with them?

15. When you and your spouse need to go out, who stays with your children? Is your son/ daughter upset when that happens? Is he/she upset if he/she has to stay at home alone?

16. When do your son/daughter eat? Probes: Has many small meals or snacks, meals with family.

17. Do you have to persuade him/her to eat his/her food?

18. Does he/she eat the same foods as the rest of the family?

19. Does he/she eat enough? too much?

(continued )

210

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 8.4 Questions to Assess Anxiety and Depression (continued) 20. What time does your son/daughter go to bed?

21. Do you do any things every night before bed? Probes: Read or tell a story; sing a song; hugs and kisses

22. What happens at bedtime? Probes: Goes to sleep right away, resists, wants to sleep with others and will otherwise not go to bed.

23. Does he/she wake up a lot at night?

24. Does he/she complain about having bad dreams? Probe: Dreams of potential traumatic events

25. Is it hard for him/her to get out of bed in the morning?

26. Does your son/daughter cry or get upset a lot?

27. What things upset him/her?

28. Does your son/daughter talk about dying or killing him/herself?

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

211

member. Parents may not be comfortable with having their children sleep at another child’s home, or go on overnight trips with schools and other groups. The acceptable age for leaving the parental home may also differ across cultures and should not be interpreted as reflecting psychopathology. Language, culture, and immigrant status need to be considered in the diagnosis of selective mutism. As indicated in the DSM-5 and supported by research (e.g., Toppelberg, Tabors, Coggins, Lum, & Burger, 2005), it is normal for L2 children and adolescents who are recent immigrants to go through a period of persistent silence for several months at school and in other situations outside of the home where the L2 is spoken. The diagnosis of selective mutism should only be given if this is prolonged and the child demonstrates reasonable receptive language skills in the L2, as was the case for Amy (Appendix Case Study 1). Some cultures value shyness more than others (e.g., Chen et al., 2004b), with the consequence that children or adolescents who are withdrawn or who are reluctant to present in front of a group may be erroneously diagnosed with social anxiety disorder. Although not mute, some children and teens may be especially anxious in evaluative social situations where they are expected to speak in their L2. It is therefore important to determine whether the behavior is culturally normative and whether these situations almost always provoke significant fear or anxiety. Comparison with siblings and other family members may be helpful in making that determination. With regard to generalized anxiety disorder, there are cultural differences in whether somatic or cognitive symptoms are most apparent. Developmentally, children are more likely to worry about school achievement than adults, who worry more about family and interpersonal issues. Achievement anxiety may be more acute in immigrant children who need to adapt to a new curriculum and language, or who have parents with very high expectations. The DSM-5 lists several depressive disorders, which have in common “the presence of sad, empty, or irritable mood, accompanied by somatic and cognitive changes that significantly affect the individual’s capacity to function” (p. 155). The disorders differ in terms of etiology, age of onset, and duration. Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder was not included in the DSM-IV. By definition, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder has its onset prior to the age of 10 years. It is characterized by persistent irritable or angry mood punctuated by severe, recurrent temper outbursts and is intended to minimize over-diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children (due to research indicating that children previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder did not continue to manifest full symptomatology in adulthood). Major depressive disorder and persistent depressive disorder are similar in that they both involve poor appetite or excessive eating, sleep difficulties (insomnia or sleeping too much), low energy or fatigue, low self-esteem, poor concentration and difficulty making decisions, and feelings of helplessness. Major depressive disorder tends to be characterized by shorter, more acute distress whereas persistent depressive disorder (previously called dysthymia)

212

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

has extended but typically milder episodes. According to the DSM-5, there are cultural differences in prevalence rates of depressive disorders, which might be due to somatic issues being the primary complaints made by patients in some cultures, leading to lower levels of diagnosis of depression. In addition, childhood adverse experiences and stressful life events are among the risk factors for major depressive disorders. Childhood trauma among refugees and the challenges and stress involved in immigrating to a new country may therefore precipitate depressive disorders in those who are at risk (see Khalil and Aisha case studies, Appendix Case Study 4 and Case Study 6). The reduction in social networks that adolescents experience when they immigrate is predictive of depression (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Farhood et al., 1993). Children and adolescents who are depressed sometimes have suicidal ideation and may be at risk for attempting or committing suicide. The risk factors for suicidal ideation among CLD youth are complex (Cho & Haslam, 2010; Mota et al., 2012; Peña et al., 2008; Slodnjak, Kos, & Yule, 2002; van Bergen, Smit, van Balkom, van Ameijden, & Saharso, 2008; Walsh, Edelstein, & Vota, 2012). Studies conducted with Ethiopian immigrants to Israel, Latino immigrants to the United States, Turkish immigrants to the Netherlands, Bosnian refugees in Slovenia, and aboriginal adolescents in Canada suggest that depression, substance use, and parental absence (i.e., parents spending considerable time in the country of origin, leaving the adolescent to attend school in the immigrant-receiving country), parental abuse, and parent substance use are risk factors for suicidal ideation. Perceived parental support was a protective factor. In some studies, second-generation adolescents were more vulnerable to suicidal ideation than those who immigrated themselves (Peña et al., 2008). Furthermore, among aboriginal youth in Canadian First Nations communities, cultural and community connection was a protective factor (Mota et al., 2012). The results of the Peña et al. and Mota et al. studies suggest that a deculturation or marginalized acculturation pattern (where individuals neither identify with the dominant culture nor that of their ethnic group) is associated with increased vulnerability to suicidal ideation. Knowledge of the risk factors for suicidal ideation is important for psychologists because when these factors are present, adolescents should be assessed for depression and asked about whether they think about dying and killing themselves. When this is the case, psychologists are obligated to conduct a suicide risk assessment, and if the teen has a moderate or high risk, to seek immediate treatment. There are resources to assist clinicians in conducting this assessment on several websites including that of the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Response to Trauma and Stress The DSM-5 provides criteria for five types of trauma and stressor-related disorders: reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

213

(both of which are associated with early abuse and neglect by caregivers), PTSD, acute stress disorder, and adjustment disorders. Given the high rates of PTSD in refugees, and the extensive research on this disorder in this population, we focus on this disorder in the following discussion and our case description of Diego (Appendix Case Study 3). Immigrants and refugees are frequently exposed to high levels of stress that often affect the entire family. These stressors include the need to acquire an L2, and to adapt to a new social and cultural environment without the support of extended family and friends. For refugees (including individuals who have applied for asylum, those whose refugee applications are in process, and those for whom refugee status has been granted), this stress is often exacerbated due to previous traumatic experiences involving war, violence, and discrimination in their countries of origin (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006), and abrupt separation from family members. Symptoms consistent with PTSD have been found to occur in children and adolescents from diverse countries and cultures and to occur at higher rates in individuals who were exposed to war and violence. According to a systematic review conducted by Fazel, Wheeler, and Danish (2005), rates of PTSD averaged 11% in a large sample of children who immigrated to western countries from war-torn regions in the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and Bosnia. Other studies have found even higher rates (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006). According to the DSM-5, PTSD is a disorder that occurs in response to very stressful or catastrophic events that are personally threatening such as violent death or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence (APA, 2013). The behavioral symptoms for individuals who are age 8 years or older include “recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories of the traumatic event” (p. 271) that might be evident in dreams, dissociative reactions such as flashbacks, and marked physiological reactions. The “exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event(s)” (p. 271) might trigger the distress. Behaviors might include distortions in cognitions and mood, inability to remember parts of the event and negative emotional state, and changes in arousal and reactivity (e.g., irritable behavior and angry outbursts, hypervigilance). The disturbance must persist for at least a month, and impair functioning in school, work, or social situations. Young children may express the disturbing memories in their play, and overtly avoid situations and people that trigger the memories. It is not unlikely that some CLD children who are diagnosed with ADHD or other related childhood disorders might actually be suffering from PTSD due to the overlapping symptoms. In some cases, a dual diagnosis might be appropriate. Children and adolescents are at risk for PTSD and related disorders when the trauma is severe and cumulative (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006). Specific issues that typically precipitate PTSD include violent death of a family member; disappearance of a family member; political persecution and imprisonment of fathers; and witnessing injury, death, and torture. Children who have chronic physical

214

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

illness or behavior disorders prior to experiencing trauma are at heightened risk, whereas those who are adaptable and have high self-esteem have a lower risk. In the case of adolescents, espousing an ideology and commitment to a cause may be protective. Family cohesion and adaptability are protective factors, whereas poor parental mental health and specifically maternal problems with coping are risk factors. Social support is a protective factor, whereas postmigration stresses, including the cumbersome process of establishing refugee status and unfavorable living conditions such as living in shelters, are risk factors. Readers are referred to Ehntholt and Yule’s (2006) literature review for a more extensive discussion. Ehntholt and Yule (2006) provide several suggestions for practitioners with respect to assessment and treatment of refugee children and adolescents who have experienced war-related trauma; these suggestions are mainly based on their extensive clinical experience as there has been little research in the area. Consistent with the recommendations already made in relation to other disorders, they suggest the use of semi-structured interviews to establish rapport, engage the children and families, and collect information. They caution against using structured diagnostic interviews because they may be perceived as an interrogation that is similar to what the families experienced in the war-torn country or by immigration officials in the immigrant-receiving country. They suggest that psychologists and other mental health practitioners begin by interviewing the family together. If the child or adolescent is an unaccompanied asylum seeker, a social worker or foster parent should take the place of the family. They indicate that it is very important to clarify issues regarding confidentiality. In many cases, once some trust is established, it is helpful to interview children separately. Standardized measures such as the War Trauma Questionnaire (Macksoud, 1992) and the Impact of Event Scale for Children (Smith, Perrin, Dyregrov, & Yule, 2003) can be used, but must be interpreted with caution because they have not necessarily been standardized on the population.

Social Communication Difficulties and Diagnosis of ASDs Challenges with social communication affect children’s functioning in most cultural situations, but the degree and nature to which these challenges are impairing may vary (Norbury & Sparks, 2013). Similarly, there is considerable research that shows that ASDs occur and are diagnosed in almost every country, but prevalence rates vary enormously (see Norbury & Sparks, 2013, for a review of this literature). In part, this is because of methodological issues such as study, sample size, and method used to ascertain diagnosis (e.g., medical record review vs. direct assessment). Norbury and Sparks, however, make a convincing argument for the notion that cultural differences in social communication may impact diagnosis and prevalence rates.

8. BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING

215

The DSM-5 lists several behavioral symptoms under the categories of “persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction” including “failure of normal back and forth conversation,” “reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect,” and “abnormalities in eye contact and body language” (p. 50). The DSM-5 states that “cultural differences will exist in norms for social interaction, nonverbal communication, and relationships” (p. 57) and that individuals with ASD are “markedly impaired against the norms for their cultural context.” The degree to which assessment tools take into account these cultural contextual variations, however, has not been clearly established. The major methods for assessing social communication difficulties and ASD are parent rating scales of autism symptoms such as the Autism Spectrum Quotient, which has been translated into several languages and standardized in several countries, and clinician observational assessment, with the gold standard being the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Second Edition (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 2008). The ADOS consists of several structured and semi-structured tasks that involve social interaction between the examiner and the person (child, adolescent, or adult) who is being assessed. It has four modules, only one of which is given, depending on the developmental level and language proficiency of the person who is being assessed. The examiner observes and codes the child’s behaviors in terms of specific categories that are consistent with ASD symptoms. The problem for recent immigrants, however, is that psychologists may not be aware of these cultural variations, and may, as a result, diagnose Level 1 ASD (i.e., requiring the lowest level of support) when children are behaving in ways that are at the extreme of the normal range for their cultural group. Consequently, psychologists should research cultural practices in social communication in CLD children and adolescents where ASD is part of the differential diagnosis, and interpret standardized scores with caution.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we outlined the problems with the typical methods that psychologists use to assess behavioral, social, and emotional functioning; discussed the language and cultural factors that impinge on this assessment; and showed how the DSA approach can be adapted for assessment of cultural and linguistically diverse children, youth, and families. This type of assessment is complex, and involves a solid background in developmental psychopathology and cultural factors that affect behavior in order to engage in the type of systematic hypothesis testing that is required. Psychologists must often rely on observations and flexible interviewing rather than scores from standardized tests, seeking different ways to obtain the data that is needed to formulate the issues, while maintaining cultural sensitivity and avoiding stereotyping.

216

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: ASSESSMENT OF BEHAVIORAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING To Do

Not to Do

Take time to obtain the trust of the child and family member accompanying the child.

Rely injudiciously on standardized rating scales and formal projective tests.

Use multiple sources to collect assessment data including child, family, and teacher report.

Interpret drawings and other projective tests using Eurocentric psychodynamic principles.

Use multiple methods to collect assessment data including observations, interviewing, formal objective rating scales, and informal projective tests such as drawings and sentence completions.

Assume that the family will use mental state terms and will attribute behavioral problems to psychological disorders.

Analyze narratives provided by children and parents.

Assume that the family will be informed about common disorders such as anxiety, depression, and ADHD.

Consider acculturation of child, parents, and other family members.

Give a DSM-5 diagnosis for behavioral differences that may be culturally normative.

Assess thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Assess peer and family relationships. Be sensitive to signs of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other disorders that are associated with loneliness, trauma, and immigration struggles. ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; DSM-5, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.); PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.

Communication, Advocacy, and Consultation CHAPTER 9:

Over the years, I attended Identification and Placement Committee and other school meetings full of worries. While waiting in the hallways for my turn, I tried to meditate but couldn’t find the inner peace to do so. All I was left with to calm me down, was to close my eyes and call out to the universe with the hope that the spirits of my ancestors would give me the focus necessary to at least record the information received even if unable to interpret it at times, the speed to take correct notes, and above all the strength needed to remain calm despite the emotional turmoil and the wrenching gut feelings I got whenever I heard something that could make my child’s situation at school even worse. Every time a meeting was over, I left knowing I hadn’t responded effectively and very little had changed. However, I was thankful to the universe for hearing my plea because I always managed to get through these meetings being very civilized and polite, despite my repressed fury because of the sense of injustice being committed against my child. (Maria, parent of a child with learning disabilities who immigrated to Canada from Latin America.)

A

ssessments are not helpful if the results are not communicated to the children and adolescents who are receiving the assessment, their parents, teachers, and other practitioners who work with them. We view assessment as being embedded in a counseling process. The goal is for the stakeholders to understand the child’s and family’s needs, and implement recommendations effectively. As discussed in Chapter 4, this entails developing a trusting professional relationship with children and their families, understanding the families’ perspectives, accommodating for cultural differences, and communicating effectively using language they understand. In this chapter, we discuss communication issues to consider in feedback interviews with children, adolescents, and families; report writing; advocacy; and consultation with teachers and educational administrators.

218

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

The communication and attitude issues to consider in feedback interviews and in written reports are similar to those involved in intake interviews. A major issue that psychologists must address is the language and literacy level of the individual and family (Groth-Marnat, 2009; Harvey, 2006; Wiener & Costaris, 2012). As discussed in Chapter 4, family and individual attitudes toward school achievement, gender roles, sexual practices in relation to marriage, family structure, sexual orientation, and the role of the peer group frame their interpretation of the information they receive. It is also important to consider the extent of acculturation of the children or adolescents being assessed and their family members, their attributions for disability and mental disorder, and potential feelings of stigma. Although these issues are the same as in intake interviews, the way they influence the process may be different because of the different goals of the two interviews. The goals of the intake interview are to establish trust and to acquire an understanding of the child’s development and the family context that informs the assessment. These goals also pertain to feedback interviews but are not the focus. Instead, the focus of feedback interviews is for children and families to understand the child’s strengths and challenges, to understand how the child learns best, and to gain an appreciation of the individual and environmental facilitators and barriers to learning and adjustment. In some cases, this might involve communicating a formal diagnosis. In addition, it is very important to communicate realistic strategies they can adopt. The case studies in the Appendix illustrate the communication, advocacy, and consultation strategies we discuss in this chapter. In these case studies, we describe the feedback interview methods we used for Boris’s (Appendix Case Study 2) parents and for Changgun/Brandon (Appendix Case Study 5) and his mother, and include the simple report we wrote for Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6). We discuss our advocacy strategies for Diego (Appendix Case Study 3), and the consultation methods we employed for Amy (Appendix Case Study 1) and Aisha (Appendix Case Study 6).

FEEDBACK INTERVIEWS Inclusion of Children and Adolescents Children and adolescents who participate in assessments should receive feedback on the results and recommendations. This feedback might be provided individually and in global terms with young children, who might feel awkward, bored, or intimidated at a feedback meeting with their parents. For some it is sufficient to comment on their strengths and effort, indicate that they find specific tasks (e.g., paying attention, memory, reading) to be hard, that it is not their fault, and that the psychologist would be talking with parents and teachers about how to help them. Older and higher functioning students, on the other hand, should

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

219

typically participate in the feedback interview with their parents and be explicitly invited to contribute their views and ask questions. Adolescents, however, should not be asked to be linguistic or cultural interpreters in this situation because of the boundary issues and potential conflict that might ensue. Although some adolescents have the cognitive capacity to absorb complex and abstract information, their emotion regulation and self-awareness may still be developing (e.g., Harter, 2012). They may not, as a result, be able to appreciate the severity and impact of their challenges, and may reject accommodations that would be beneficial for them academically but that they perceive as embarrassing (e.g., using a laptop in class; extended time on examinations). Children and adolescents from cultures where disabilities and accommodations are stigmatizing may not initially accept the results of testing, saying that they did not try hard, or attributing the problems to external factors such as poor teaching. In some families, adolescents have to take on a parental role in terms of care of younger siblings or communication with the community due to their parents’ need to work long hours and their inadequate second-language (L2) skills. They may fear punishment or humiliation if their difficulties are disclosed to their parents. They also may be more integrated into the society of the immigrant-receiving country, and engage in practices that are acceptable in their adopted country but not in their countries of origin (e.g., having a romantic partner, not wearing religious garments in school). As their parents may be very concerned about these practices, it is important to provide feedback to these teens prior to their families, and to ask them about the information that they do not want disclosed to their parents.

Language and Literacy Level The language and literacy level of children and families impacts their ability to absorb complex information from psychological assessments. Some educated parents may have a background in psychology, read material on the Internet and other sources about their children’s difficulties, have a solid grasp of mathematics so they can easily absorb concepts such as percentiles, and want to have detailed feedback about their children’s functioning and diagnosis. If they are immigrants, their children may have had previous assessments and have attended special education schools (sometimes in the private sector) in the country of origin. This may be the case even if their L2 skills are minimal and they require an interpreter. Often they have immigrated to give their child with a disability more opportunities, only to find that they cannot afford private schools in the immigrant-receiving country and the public system does not provide the level of supports that their child received at a private school in their country of origin. As discussed in the Boris case study (Appendix Case Study 2), the only adaptations that these families might need at feedback interviews are interpreters, information about resources, and how to find them, and recommendations as to how to access services in the public system.

220

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

As described in the Diego case study (Appendix Case Study 3), other parents, typically those with low levels of education or who do not subscribe to mind–body dualism (see Chapter 4), may not have encountered concepts that are common, albeit often misunderstood, in the immigrant-receiving country such as intelligence, memory, anxiety, and depression. They have not read or watched documentaries about disorders such as learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorders. They might not be aware that cognitive processes might influence academic achievement or that reading to your children and playing educational games may be beneficial. They typically want feedback on their children’s functioning that is general in nature, and are intimidated by technical terms and quantitative data. They also do not have any knowledge about special education resources in schools and may feel too intimidated to advocate for them. The following strategies may be helpful for these families: 1. Use simple vocabulary and avoid technical terms; 2. Listen to the parents, paying attention to what they communicate they need and want to know; 3. Think about and convey the key points that the parents must absorb; 4. Convey the message that questions and comments are welcome; 5. Be respectful of cultural beliefs; 6. Draw analogies to concepts that are familiar to them; 7. Bring in the actual tasks that were used in the assessment; 8. Use visual representations of concepts (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2) 9. Use the simple report (see Table 9.1 and following discussion) as a guide.

The single-parent mother who was quoted at the beginning of this chapter was midway along the continuum between the highly educated parent and the parent with limited language and literacy. Although her formal education did not include secondary school, she likely shared her son’s very high verbal abilities, ADHD, and social difficulties. In our earlier meetings with her, she often had problems listening, and told us stories, some of which were irrelevant. She sought information on her son’s learning disabilities and ADHD, and tried valiantly to advocate for him at school. Her unsuccessful attempts at advocacy, however, often exacerbated her already high levels of anxiety and depression. After receiving the e-mail message from her, we prepared a PowerPoint handout that outlined what we intended to talk about and provided notes for her. She commented that this was very helpful because she would not then ask questions about things she knew would be addressed later, and she did not have to simultaneously listen and take notes in her L2. In her case, she had the background knowledge to understand the quantitative results of the tests, and relevant psychological and educational concepts.

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

ENGLISH Phonological awareness Phonological memory

221

CHINESE Visual differentiation Visual memory

Letter-sound correspondence

English is an alphabetic language. Learning English relies heavily on phonological ability.

Chinese employs a logographic writing system. Learning Chinese relies heavily on visual-spatial ability.

Figure 9.1 Graphic representation of the differential role of phonological processing in reading English and Chinese languages. Note: This unpublished graphic was given to parents of a 16-year-old girl who had immigrated to Canada from China 3 years earlier. This girl struggled to acquire English word-level reading skills, but did not have challenges with reading in Mandarin. The graphic was drawn by Sharon To, a school and clinical psychology graduate student who speaks Mandarin, to help the girl’s parents understand the difference between reading alphabetic orthography and logographic orthography, and is reprinted with Sharon To’s permission.

Acculturation and Family Attitudes in Communicating a Diagnosis Prior to communicating a diagnosis, it is important to listen to the way parents describe their children’s learning and behavior. If parents are educated or appear to have adopted elements of the medical or bioecological model, it may not be necessary to adapt the way a diagnosis is communicated (e.g., use terms such as anxiety, depression, or learning disabilities). If the parents mention traditional belief systems such as Fengshui among Chinese immigrants, evil spirits among Mexican immigrants, reincarnation among South Asian immigrants (Gajjar, Humphries, Peterson-Badali, & Otsubo, 2000; Humphries et al., 2000; Yeung & Kam, 2008), or attribute their children’s difficulties to racism, prejudice, poverty, or oppression, adaptations need to be made. The dilemma is that, as shown by Sue (1998), congruence in psychologistclient thinking is associated with better treatment outcomes and improved perceptions of treatment. Consistent with Yeung and Kam’s (2008) comments in

222

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

What I have learned about

2%

7%

16%

’s learning profile:

50%

16%

7%

2%

Figure 9.2 Embellished normal curve for use in feedback interviews. Note: We use this version of a normal curve in feedback interviews with parents. Prior to the interview the psychologist writes a list of specific areas of child functioning (e.g., vocabulary, working memory, word-level reading, math calculation) on the lines at the top of the figure and, using pencil crayons or markers, colors the box. During the interview, the psychologist marks the stick persons corresponding to the child’s percentile score in the various areas of functioning with the appropriate color. Source: This unpublished version of a normal curve embellished with diagrams of people was created by Dr. Avigail van Ram, a psychologist employed by the Toronto District School Board, and is printed with her permission. There are variations of this embellished normal curve on the following Internet sites: http://www. pacificcoastspeech.com/resources.html and http://somethingtotalkaboutslp.blogspot.ca/2013/12/ handy-dandy-bell-curve.html.

relation to psychiatry, legal and professional guidelines indicate that psychologists should communicate a diagnosis based on current scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, reframing concepts to emphasize congruence with children’s and parents’ cultural viewpoints, describing symptoms in a way that is consonant with their cultural and family context, involving the family’s support system, and using terminology that avoids unintended stigma may help families understand their children’s difficulties, and accept and engage in required interventions. When working with families who communicate traditional beliefs, Yeung and Kam (2008) recommend describing the problem in accessible language and

Table 9.1 Characteristics of Effective Psychological Reports Feature

Methods

Readability

Short sentences Few difficult words Minimize acronyms Report percentile scores and explain what they mean

Explaining technical terms

Qualitative description of test response (e.g., working memory is defined as repeating numbers backward) Relating to problem provided by client (e.g., I can’t remember a person’s number while I dial it.) Providing an implication for everyday life (e.g., likely would not be able to take notes from a lecture)

223

Consistent with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences of parents and teachers Recommendations format Specific and clear (SMARTS) Measurable Applicable to the client’s needs Realistic to implement in the context Timely Supported by research (continued )

Table 9.1 Characteristics of Effective Psychological Reports (continued) Recommendations Content

Educational placement including L2 language development, heritage language, special education Classroom accommodations Modifications to instruction in reading, writing, and math Behavior management Facilitating social interaction Reducing anxiety and depression Developing executive functioning skills Parenting

224

Additional assessments and treatments for children and families Additional resources Organized by functional domain

Headings are areas of functioning such as intellectual ability, reading, writing, math, social and emotional functioning Domains consistent with referral questions Domains are phrased as questions at beginning of report, headings are phrased as questions, and questions are addressed

Not organized by source of information

Headings do not refer to where the information was obtained, such as parent interview, behavioral observations, test results

Source: Wiener and Costaris (2012).

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

225

being sensitive to the needs of clients in terms of what they can understand and accept. Describing the issues behaviorally with a minimum of technical terms, using specific examples, or asking the parents if they have encountered examples of the issues involved may lead to acceptance of the problem. Avoiding words such as severe, ill, or abnormal that may be associated with stigma is helpful. Using nontechnical terms to describe and explain the potential etiology of the disorder (including biological and environmental issues) may be helpful in changing the family’s beliefs, and this may be helpful to the child. Sometimes it may be possible to refer to information from popular media in the country of origin that legitimize the conceptualization of the issues. In order to increase the probability that the diagnosis will not be completely rejected, the formal diagnostic term should only be communicated after the behavioral descriptions and possible causes are communicated and accepted with minimal stigma and shock. Parent involvement in their children’s education and attitudes toward achievement may have an impact on how parents accept a diagnosis of a learning disability or intellectual disability. In cultures where academic achievement is very important, parents may attribute the children’s problems to lack of effort, and be unable to immediately accept the diagnosis. Their reaction may be to increase already excessive tutoring time, or extend the time they are working with their children (see Boris, Appendix Case Study 2). To some extent, the cultural attitudes may be mitigated by acculturation. Thus, parents who are more acculturated to the immigrant-receiving society may have been exposed to the concept of a learning disability and be more able to accept the diagnosis (Yaghoub-Zadeh, Geva, & Rogers, 2008). Therefore, it may be important to show quantitative data regarding cognitive processes affecting achievement, emphasize strengths and the development of those strengths, provide them with information about the extent to which learning disabilities are common and how individuals with these disabilities can be successful in spite of academic challenges, give them information about websites and parent groups that might help them put the problem in perspective, and discuss the potentially negative impact (e.g., anxiety, depression) of parent anxiety about achievement and excessive pressure (Shany, Wiener, & Feingold, 2011). Conversely, although most parents say that their children’s academic achievement is important, some uneducated parents from cultures where academics are not emphasized may not know how to support their children’s learning, in part because they do not have the L2 language and literacy skills to help. Even then, conveying to them that there are things they can do is important. Psychologists might, for example, provide instruction about bedtime routines, or discuss having a time each evening where screen time is banned and everyone does academic work. Immigrant families where this is the case (i.e., parents study the L2 and the children read or do homework) have higher academic achievement than other families (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1992). Resources such as homework

226

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

clubs, library literacy programs, and sources for volunteer tutors should be explained. If parents or siblings are able to read children’s books in L1 or L2, they should be encouraged to do so with their children. Some parents might not accept diagnoses of internalizing and externalizing disorders because they assume that their children’s feelings and behaviors are intentional and controllable. Treatments such as parenting interventions, psychotherapy, or medication may be foreign or stigmatizing. They may not know how to access treatment even when they are agreeable. Similar to issues involving achievement, parents may need explanation about the biological basis of emotional and behavioral disorders, and how they may result from environmental factors such as the trauma of refugee camps, the need to adapt to the culture of the immigrant-receiving country, or being rejected or bullied by peers. Their more acculturated children and teens may behave in a similar way to youth in the immigrant-receiving country, but be less compliant than their parents expect, given their cultural background. Psychologists need to help parents understand the conflict and suffering their children are experiencing due to the differences between their traditional cultural practices and the norms of their peer group. Having a family session with a cultural facilitator may reduce intergenerational conflict stemming from acculturation differences (Sterlin, Legendre, & Kada, 2000). Sometimes children and teens may disclose information that should be kept confidential because of conflicting values and potential difficulty in the home. These might include disclosures about issues that would not be problematic in most households in the immigrant-receiving country such as dating, or others that are more sensitive in many families such as sexual orientation. Corporal punishment may also be more acceptable in some cultural groups and may necessitate a referral to protective services. Culturally specific issues such as a female Muslim teenager saying she removes her hijab at school or has a boyfriend, or a boy from a devout Catholic family believing that he is gay, are often complex. Being vigilant about confidentiality when children and teens disclose conflicts with their parents, and being mindful of ethical and professional guidelines regarding reporting maltreatment, are extremely important. In some cases, psychologists may feel stressed and uncertain due to the challenging ethical dilemmas. Consultation with colleagues, supervisors, and cultural interpreters may be helpful. As discussed in Chapter 4, parents of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children who have disabilities or mental health issues may experience high levels of parenting stress. Reduction of parenting stress is often a precursor to parents being able to implement interventions with their children effectively (Kazdin, 1995). It is therefore important to be mindful about increasing stress by inducing guilt about what they are not doing, or by making recommendations that they do not have the resources to implement. Some strategies for reducing parenting stress include encouraging parents to access their social support

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

227

system (Theule, Wiener, Rogers, & Marton, 2011), being available to consult with parents on an ongoing basis when they need support, linking parents with agencies that provide respite care, distributing the load for caring for a child with a disability among family members, and advocating for appropriate supports for their children at school. Parents may also benefit from mindfulness treatments, which have been shown to reduce parenting stress in parents of children and adolescents with learning disabilities and ADHD (Haydicky, Schecter, Wiener, & Ducharme, in press).

ADAPTING PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS The purpose of psychological reports is to provide a long-term record of the results of an assessment that enhances the understanding of clients, parents, teachers, and other professionals about the child’s functioning, and provides recommendations for intervention and accommodations. Reports should be written in a manner that is sufficiently clear that readers with a variety of backgrounds can comprehend the findings and implement the recommendations. The goal is short- and longterm improvement in the child’s or teen’s academic achievement and psychological adjustment (Harvey, 2006). Research completed since the 1960s has delineated the features of effective psychological reports (e.g., Groth-Marnat, 2009; Wiener & Costaris, 2012). These reports are readable, connect to the person’s context, have clear links between the referral questions and the answers to these questions, have integrated interpretations, and address client strengths as well as problem areas. As suggested by Wiener (1987), the framework of considerate text (Armbruster & Anderson, 1984; 1985), which is based on schema theory, may guide report writing. Like writers of other expository text, psychologists should take into account the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the potential readers of the reports, and should carefully consider the structure and coherence of the text. Wiener and Costaris (2012) reviewed the literature on reports that are comprehended by parents and teachers. The conclusions from this review are summarized in Table 9.1. If the features recommended in Table 9.1 are incorporated into reports, it is possible for parents with a high-school education to read and comprehend them. It would be very challenging, however, to write meaningful reports that provide a long-term record and guide school placement and instructional and therapeutic interventions at a reading level below that. For that reason, we recommend that psychologists provide a one-page simple report that consists of the key points of the assessment for parents and adolescents who do not have the requisite literacy levels (see template in Table 9.2 and example of the report written for Aisha in Appendix Case Study 6). The report can be addressed to the parent or to the adolescent client. The report should comprise lists of strengths, challenges, reasons for challenges, and recommendations. The lists should be written in bullet form. The reading level of this simple report can

228

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 9.2 Simple Report Template Report for __________________________ (Child’s Name), ____________ (Date of Birth) _________________________ (Psychologist’s Name) ___________________ (Assessment Date)

You are good at O
A O
B O
C O
D O
E

You learn best when A O
You B O
You C O
By D O
You E O
When you F O
You

It is hard for you to O
A O
B O
C O
D O
E

These things are hard because O
A O
B O
C O
D O
E

Things that teachers, tutors, and parents can do to help O
Help you A O
Tell you B O
Explain C O
Teach you how to D O
Take you to E O
Let you F O
Show you G

Things you can do to help yourself O
Keep

O
Send

O
Go

O
Join

on A to B O
Bring C O
Go over D O
Ask for E O
Work on F O
Practice G

H I O
Try to J O
Watch K O
Talk to L O
Ask for help with M

Note: Substitute the child’s name if parents are the audience for this report (e.g., ___ is good at). In that case, the title of the fifth box should be Things that teachers and tutors can do to help ____, and the sixth box is Things that you can do to help ____.

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

229

be adjusted depending on the literacy of the teens and parents. For example, strengths can be changed to “you are good at”; “challenges” can be changed to “you find it hard to.” It is also economically feasible for interpreters to translate this report into the family’s L1 due to its brevity.

COMMUNICATION TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Psychological assessments that culminate in a report with recommendations that are not implemented do not lead to the supports that CLD children and adolescents require. Therefore, psychologists sometimes need to advocate for these children with schools and health professionals, and to consult with educators and other professionals to facilitate implementation of the recommendations. In many cases, this consultation leads to adaptation of the recommendations, as better understanding of the context and assessing the child’s response to intervention suggest a different direction.

Advocacy As discussed in Chapter 4, many immigrant or refugee parents such as Maria, whose e-mail message was quoted at the outset of this chapter, have to deal with issues such as poverty, limited social supports, and low levels of cultural capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Due to language barriers and few contacts in the broader community, they may find it hard to access supports for their children at school or in the health system. In some cases, they may have physicians who do not speak their language. In other cases, they may have physicians from their cultural community who minimize the severity of the challenges that their children have. The parents may also be anxious about advocating for their children because of their own language challenges, because they do not trust school staff due to previous negative experiences, or because schools and health practitioners in their culture are viewed as authorities with whom one does not argue. Consequently, psychologists who work with CLD children and adolescents may, at times, need to assume an advocacy role. Advocacy may include attending school meetings with CLD parents who, like Maria, have had negative experiences advocating for their children. It is important to prepare them for the meeting, assertively articulate the children’s needs on their behalf, and provide emotional support after the meetings. This must be done sensitively in order to ensure respect for the parent’s goals while simultaneously considering the needs of their children. We describe the advocacy process further when discussing the Diego case study (Appendix Case Study 3). Following the assessment, psychologists should help families access the community and school resources that might help their children. In addition to health and mental health agencies, these resources may include settlement

230

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

agencies, religious leaders, and communities; websites that provide information; and recreational facilities. For parents who speak the language of the immigrantreceiving country and are confident advocates, giving them a list of resources, print materials, and websites may be sufficient. Other parents may need more support to access the resources that help their children. Psychologists might have to phone on their behalf, or enlist the support of a social worker or settlement worker to do so. One of the resources that psychologists should consider to support CLD children and adolescents is volunteer tutor/mentors. At the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Psychology Clinic, we screen undergraduate students who volunteer to tutor or mentor immigrant or refugee children and adolescents who are highly motivated to improve their academic achievement and who attend sessions punctually and reliably. Many of the volunteers are themselves immigrants or children of immigrants and typically only ask for a strong letter of recommendation for employment, or for graduate or professional studies. We initially meet with the undergraduate volunteers, review the psychological report with them so that they understand the needs, and show them how to implement the recommendations. In some cases, the recommendations include recreational activities that facilitate vocabulary development as well as academic remediation and tutoring. We then provide supervision as needed.

Consultation School or educational psychologists who are hired by school districts are in an ideal position to consult with educators, including regular classroom teachers, L2 teachers, special education teachers, and school administrators regarding instructional and behavioral interventions that support the CLD children and adolescents they assess. In this context, we are defining consultation as an exchange involving the offering by consultants and acceptance by consultees of assistance in supporting CLD children and adolescents. The immediate goal of the consultation is resolving problems and developing and implementing an intervention for the referred child or teen. The long-term goal, however, is permanent change in the problem-solving approaches of the consultee (Rhodes, 1974). Consultation may occur in relation to specific children and adolescents (case consultation), the content and process of a program delivered to many students (program consultation), and to the organization of the entire school district (system consultation). We are mainly addressing the issue of case consultation in this book. Psychologists play many different roles when consulting regarding CLD children and adolescents, including teacher, library of special knowledge, analyst, reviewer, planner, sounding board, catalyst, and change agent (Gutkin & Curtis, 2009; Rhodes, 1974). In addition to providing their expert knowledge about children with learning and behavioral difficulties, in the case of CLD

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

231

children, psychologists might provide information about the cultural perspective of the family in order to help teachers and school administrators understand the family’s attitudes to their child’s learning and behavior. As supportive parent involvement in children’s learning is typically associated with higher academic achievement (Rogers, Wiener, Marton, & Tannock, 2009), creating a climate where CLD parents are involved with the school may enhance the academic engagement and achievement of their children. Teachers and school administrators often confide in school psychologists when they are frustrated with the behavior of specific children and families, or when they are not provided with the resources that they view as essential to do their jobs. Listening attentively, and reframing the information, is often helpful in order to formulate a plan collaboratively. This may be especially important in the case of CLD children and families as educators may not have a solid understanding of the cultural norms of the family, the constraints the family is experiencing due to limited financial resources, and the profound adjustments they might need to make to adapt to the immigrant-receiving country. Effective consultation always involves some element of change in the behavior of the consultee, and sometimes in the system as a whole. It may involve the school having a better understanding of CLD children, adolescents, and families, and providing accommodations for their needs. Teacher and school administrator attitudes are associated with their practices in relation to children with learning and behavior difficulties (e.g., Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010; Poulou & Norwich, 2000; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Furthermore, CLD children and adolescents in several countries report the negative impact of teacher verbal attacks and prejudice on their school adjustment (e.g., Deuchar & Bhopal, 2013; Geiger, 2012). There is also evidence that teacher attitudes toward the cultural practices of students and families affect their evaluations of academic achievement and behavior of their students (Sirin, Ryce, & Mir, 2009). Consequently, fostering positive teacher attitudes toward CLD students is important. Psychologists should therefore consider teacher attitudes when making recommendations for school placement, and through the consultation process attempt to change negative attitudes whenever possible. Teachers who are most likely to accommodate to CLD children, especially those with learning and behavior difficulties, tend to have open-minded thinking dispositions (Elik et al., 2010); they are flexible thinkers who typically give weight to evidence that counters their previous beliefs, and think deeply about problems (Stanovich & West, 2007). Although they may understand that some students have a disability or disorder that is affecting their learning and behavior, they also believe that they are capable of finding ways to teach those students, and that students’ difficulties are amenable to intervention. Furthermore, teachers who attribute children’s difficulties, at least in part, to factors that the teacher can control are less likely to have negative emotions about students’

232

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

negative behaviors, and to engage in punitive actions (Elik et al., 2010). Teachers with these attributions also find creative ways to teach students experiencing learning and behavioral difficulties (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). In relation to CLD children and adolescents, teachers who are open-minded and believe that they have an important role in helping these students engage in effective practices to teach the students and involve their families (Eberly, Joshi, & Konzal, 2007). These teachers do research to find out about their students’ culture, and try to refrain from judging children and families. They ask the parents questions to find out how they foster learning and manage behavior. They are flexible and positive in their communications (e.g., phone parents with good news rather than only when the student has been misbehaving). Their schools are open to parents (including being flexible about times for meetings), and engage in meaningful activities to involve them in the school and teach them about enhancing the cognitive and language development of their children. During the consultation process, psychologists need to differentiate their practices when communicating with teachers who are open-minded and interventionist in their beliefs, versus those who are close-minded (i.e., dogmatic, rigid, and dislike ambiguity), angry, frustrated, and punitive. For educators who have positive attitudes, a collaborative consultation process where psychologists, teachers, school administrators, and others (e.g., guidance counselors, speech, and language therapists) problem-solve to find strategies to enhance the learning and behavior of CLD students with learning and behavior difficulties is typically effective. Consulting with teachers and school administrators who are extremely close-minded and punitive is much more challenging. It is sometimes necessary to show teachers who have negative attitudes how implementing an intervention might benefit them (i.e., the student may be less disruptive) rather than how it might benefit the student. Consultations are most likely to be effective when consultees believe that they are capable of implementing an intervention and believe it to be congruent with their perception of the problem and professional responsibilities, and when it fits into the natural ecology of the classroom or school (Gutkin & Curtis, 2009). Case consultation typically involves the following stages: defining the problem, establishing goals, collecting data, problem analysis, plan development, treatment implementation, and treatment evaluation (e.g., Gutkin & Curtis, 2009; Sheridan, 2000). In the context of a psychological assessment, case consultation may occur when psychologists, teachers, and school administrators meet initially to discuss the presenting problems, and establish specific goals for the assessment/consultation (e.g., determine how to teach a specific child with a severe reading disability to read; develop a behavior management plan). Data collection might include classroom observation; interviewing children, parents, and other family members; administration of psychological and educational tests; and dynamic assessment. An initial plan is then developed collaboratively

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

233

with teachers on the basis of this data. In some instances, regular education, special education, or L2 teachers implement an intervention, and use curriculum-based measurement to assess the student’s response. These teachers and the psychologist examine the data together and decide on a different course of action if the response is not adequate. Sheridan (1997, 2000) has developed an approach to consultation that involves psychologists (typically school psychologists) working with parents and teachers as joint consultees to develop behavioral interventions for children and adolescents who have learning or behavioral difficulties. This conjoint behavioral consultation approach (CBC) is “an extension of behavioral consultation that combines the resources of the home and school to effect positive change in a child-client.” CBC involves parents and teachers “working in a cooperative constructive manner” (Sheridan, 2000, p. 344). Sheridan (2000) discussed how CBC might be adapted to work with CLD consultees. With regard to the problem definition phase, she cautioned psychologists that it is important to consider that child behaviors that are seen as problems at school may not be so viewed by parents and vice versa. It is therefore important to view these problem behaviors as a mismatch between the individual characteristics of the child, caregivers, and “the environments within which they are embedded” (p. 346). Cultures differ, for example, in terms of values for conformity, independence, and assertiveness. Social withdrawal or aggression may not be seen as problematic by some parents, whereas they have negative consequences at school. It may therefore be important to define the problem in terms of the negative consequences for the child due to the school environment, as opposed to the child being the problem. Sheridan also indicated that there might be cultural differences in the acceptability of specific goals for treatment, necessitating adjusting goals to the family and cultural norms. For example, the teacher may view homework completion as an important goal, whereas parents who are struggling with long work hours and a large family may be more concerned about an adolescent doing housework and child care. Sheridan discussed cultural issues that are important to consider in data collection (e.g., cultural differences in comfort with self-disclosure), problem analysis, and plan development. She cautioned that it is extremely important to consider parents’ personal and material resources (e.g., time, skills, finances, social supports, language, and literacy abilities) that are needed to implement a plan. The case study of Amy (Appendix Case Study 1) illustrates the use of CBC with a child who was diagnosed with selective mutism. This case study describes several adaptations that were necessary because Amy’s parents, whose L1 was Mandarin, did not speak English fluently, and because they attributed her lack of communication at school to shyness, which they viewed as a positive characteristic. This case study also shows that psychologists who are employed by clinics as well as those employed by school districts can implement CBCs effectively.

234

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

CONCLUSION Communicating the results of psychological assessments is crucial. In the case of CLD children and adolescents, in addition to communicating with the children and teens themselves and their parents, it is usually important (with appropriate consent) to consult and collaborate with teachers, other educators, and practitioners such as physicians, speech and language pathologists, and social workers, and in some instances, to advocate within the school system. This means that psychologists must be mobile and flexible so that they can observe in classrooms, meet with teachers, and attend school placement meetings. Psychologists also frequently need to adapt the strategies typically used in feedback sessions with adolescents and parents and write reports that they can comprehend.

TO DO OR NOT TO DO: COMMUNICATING WITH FAMILIES, PROFESSIONALS, AND SCHOOLS To Do

Not to Do

Consider the To Do’s and Not to Do’s about understanding families in Chapter 4.

Use a standard method for communicating assessment results to families.

Establish the family’s capacity for understanding complexities of the child’s functioning and adjust communication to that level.

Explain the results of every test and every score to families who are not following this, or keep the message too simple for families who want to understand the complexities.

Focus on core messages for families who do not have the background to comprehend detailed feedback.

Present didactically and in a condescending manner without giving the family an opportunity to ask questions.

Be sensitive to the family’s questions and concerns.

Schedule only an hour for feedback when the session may take longer due to language challenges or the need to interpret.

Consider that parents may not have words for some mental health concepts in their language.

Provide recommendations for intervention that are not possible for the family to implement or are inconsistent with their values.

Develop recommendations for intervention that are consonant with family values whenever possible.

Assume that the family can access community resources and advocate for their children independently.

Use visuals and graphics to explain concepts.

Organize reports by source of information (continued )

9. COMMUNICATION, ADVOCACY, AND CONSULTATION

To Do

Not to Do

Organize information by topic and write reports at a reading level that can be comprehended by people with a highschool education.

Make recommendations that exceed the capacity of parents to implement.

Give parents a copy of the report. When appropriate, emphasize that they should keep it in a safe place and give it to schools and health professionals if concerns about their children arise. Provide a simple report for adolescents and parents who cannot comprehend the full report. Have the simple report translated into the parents’ L1 if that would be helpful. With the parents’ agreement, advocate for the child in the school system and with other agencies. Consult with teachers, school administrators, and other school-based professionals. Consider educator attitudes when consulting with them.

235

Putting It All Together

CHAPTER 10:

Myth: The major challenge that psychologists have when they assess culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents is selecting nonbiased assessment instruments. Fact: Case formulation and linking assessment with interventions for CLD children and adolescents are extremely important and often more challenging than any other aspect of the assessment process. Case formulation is based on gathering, considering, and synthesizing multiple sources of information—not just administering tests and applying a set of norms.

T

he most challenging and arguably most important part of any assessment is the diagnostic formulation and recommendations for intervention. The first part of this chapter discusses clinical decision making and diagnostic formulation using a developmental systems approach (DSA; Mash & Hunsley, 2007) that is based on developmental bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005a; 2005b). Suggestions for organizing assessment data and methods for thinking about the data in order to formulate the case systemically are provided. The second section of this chapter discusses key issues involved in linking assessment with academic and psychosocial intervention. The final section of the chapter is the conclusion for the book. In this conclusion, we review the knowledge, strategies, skills, and attitudes that are essential competencies for psychologists who conduct assessments with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children and adolescents.

238

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING AND DIAGNOSTIC FORMULATION Organizing the Data Children and adolescents are commonly referred to psychologists because of learning difficulties, inattention, social challenges, and internalizing or externalizing behavior disorders. Although this is also the case for CLD children and adolescents, referrals often include slow progress in developing secondlanguage (L2) oral language proficiency (OLP). Furthermore, at the point that they are referred, their academic challenges are frequently severe because earlier parents and teachers often assume that their difficulties are delays due to having to learn the L2 and therefore do not consult psychologists when problems arise. Some educators are aware of Cummins’s (1984) concern about over-identification of ELL students as having a mild intellectual disability or learning disability (LD), and are therefore reluctant to refer for psychological assessment. Although the reason for referral needs to be addressed in diagnostic formulations, psychologists must also consider other presenting problems that might not have been included in the referral information including social and peer difficulties, as well as anxiety and mood problems. Psychologists often collect an enormous amount of data from behavioral observations, interviews, standardized tests, and curriculum-based assessments. This information is initially organized by source of information (i.e., notes from the intake interview and subsequent interviews with parents and teachers; behavioral observations by date of session; classroom observations; scores on standardized test protocols; and curriculum-based measures) rather than by topic. The first step in the process is reorganizing the data to reflect key topics that contribute to diagnostic formulation. To do so, the questions listed in Table 10.1 might be helpful. These questions are, however, only a guide and should be modified depending on the age of the child or adolescent, and the nature of the presenting problem, the family and school context, and assessment findings. It may also be appropriate to consider whether a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) diagnosis fits with the data and to group data according to the criteria of the hypothesized diagnoses.

Systemic Frameworks for Interpretation of Assessment Data Clinical formulation using the DSA (see Chapter 8) involves consideration of developmental factors in relation to the individual child or adolescent, as well as key environments that the child experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 2005a; 2005b). These environments include microsystems—immediate environments in which the child interacts on a day-to-day basis such as families and classrooms, and more remote macrosystems that involve the overall cultural contexts, ethnicity or

10. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

239

Table 10.1 Organizing Assessment Data 1. What is Client’s name’s overall level of ability? (For some children and teens who are developing the societal language, nonverbal ability should be used as an indicator as discussed in Chapter 6.) 2. At what level is Client’s name functioning in reading, written language, and mathematics? (Insert test scores from standardized tests, relevant behavioral observations, and results of dynamic testing and response to intervention.) 3. What is the nature of Client’s name’s oral language problems? Are Client’s name’s difficulties with oral language due to insufficient exposure to _____(name societal language)? 4. What factors are interfering with Client’s name’s progress in school? O
Oral language proficiency in the L2 O
Cognitive processes such as memory, processing speed, visual-motor integration, and executive functioning O
Inadequate previous schooling, interrupted schooling O
Learning disability O
ADHD 5. What learning, coping, or compensatory strategies does Client’s name employ? 6. How is Client’s name functioning socially and emotionally? Has Client’s name’s immigration history, including possible trauma prior to immigration, impacted his/her adaptation? O
Acculturation of child/adolescent and family O
Self-concept/self-esteem O
Personal strengths O
Family relationships and support, understanding of child’s difficulties O
Peer relationships and support O
Internalizing problems O
Externalizing problems 7. How does Client’s name learn best? (Table 7.1) 8. What is the nature of Client’s name’s life/adaptive skills? 9. What factors should Client’s name consider when making career decisions? 10. What is an appropriate educational placement and program for Client’s name? 11. How can Client’s name’s parent(s) help Client’s name at home? 12. What additional assessment(s)/treatment(s) are required for Client’s name? ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

race, patterns of community, and cultural beliefs that can affect development. It is also important to consider general and ongoing risk factors that predispose a child to a specific developmental pattern, critical incidents, or traumatic events that are associated with maladaptive development, as well as factors that are associated with resilience (Weerasekera, 1996). The developmental and environmental factors that are important to consider in case formulation are depicted in Table 10.2. Both neurological and genetic factors influence child development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005a; 2005b). Children and adolescents may have a disability

240

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Table 10.2 Framework for Interpreting Assessment Data Neurological/ Genetic

Cognitive/ Sociocultural/ Behavioral Immigration

Familial School/ Classroom

General risk factors Critical incidents/ trauma Resilience factors

with an identified neurological etiology (e.g., alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders) or genetic etiology (e.g., Down syndrome; see Boris, Appendix Case Study 2). Thus, children with a genetic syndrome or neurological disorder may have a specific pattern of cognitive deficits and problem behaviors that are common to individuals with those biologically based disorders. Children who were born prematurely or where there was brain injury at birth may also be at risk for learning and behavioral difficulties (e.g., Bauer & Msall, 2010; Hornby & Woodward, 2009). For most children and adolescents, there is no identified known neurological or genetic disorder that is associated with their difficulties. Nevertheless, they have cognitive processing deficits that are typical of children and adolescents with LD such as difficulties with phonological processing or working memory (see the Diego, Khalil, and Aisha case studies in the Appendix, Case Study 3, Case Study 4, and Case Study 6). They may also have symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), have internalizing behavior disorders such as anxiety (see Amy’s case study, Appendix Case Study 1), and exhibit externalizing behaviors such as aggression or noncompliance (see Changgun’s case study, Appendix Case Study 5). Although there are many studies that support a genetic basis for LD and ADHD (e.g., Willcutt et al., 2010), in most current cases psychological assessments do not involve determining the neurological or genetic underpinnings of the difficulties experienced by children with these diagnoses. Social environmental factors are also associated with academic achievement and social and emotional difficulties in children and adolescents. As discussed in Chapter 2, social risk factors include living in an impoverished neighborhood where there is a high level of gang activity and crime (e.g., Fandrem, Ertesvåg, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2010; Fandrem, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2009), or living in a depressed homogeneous community that due to historical factors has neither maintained its culture nor adopted the dominant culture of the country (e.g.,

10. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

241

Mota et al., 2012). Negative stereotypes and discrimination are also risk factors (e.g., Miszei, 2012; Tanner, 2005). High levels of social and community support, including having extended family living nearby, is a protective factor for most CLD children and adolescents (Beiser, Simich, Pandalangat, Nowakowski, & Tian, 2011; Dunst & Trivette, 2010). As discussed in Chapter 4, cultural factors that affect functioning of CLD children and adolescents include having short- versus long-term orientation, values for academic achievement, and family structure and gender roles (Dana, 2005; Guerra, Hammons, & Otsuki Clutter, 2011; Schneider, 1993). In general, longterm orientation and strong values regarding academic achievement are adaptive, but may be problematic for children and adolescents who, due to a LD, are not able to meet expectations. Acculturation is an important factor to consider in the clinical formulation because the deculturation or marginalization pattern is associated with considerable risk in terms of developmental outcomes including suicide (e.g., Peña et al., 2008). Furthermore, as exemplified in the Changgun case study (Appendix Case Study 5), acculturation conflict is associated with family conflict and negative outcomes in youth (Tardif & Geva, 2006). There are several immigration stressors that CLD children and adolescents experience at a higher rate than other children, which may lead to the development of new behavioral, social, and emotional challenges, and in some cases may be associated with ongoing difficulties. As discussed in Chapter 8, trauma is a psychological factor that should be considered when they come from backgrounds where this is likely to have occurred, such as children who are refugees from violent or war torn countries (e.g., Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011; Ehntholt & Yule, 2006). Immigration typically involves stress related to the need to adapt to a different social and cultural milieu. Clinical or subclinical anxiety and depressive symptoms may be precipitated by these major changes. Families may also have to move several times while settling in the immigrant-receiving country, and may not have the social supports that they enjoyed in their countries of origin. In some immigrant families, the mother initially moves with the children while the father remains in the home country to complete business ventures. In other immigrant families, the opposite is true. Families may also have assumed that they would immediately be employed after immigrating, only to find that the parents’ credentials are not accepted and they must take jobs that pay minimum wage. Families may also be dealing with refugee claims and anxiety about whether their claims will be accepted. These stressors may precipitate family dysfunction and behavioral difficulties in children. Although it is sometimes hard to tease apart familial factors from social–cultural factors, there are familial factors such as maternal depression and substance use that are maladaptive in almost any culture (e.g., Leschied, Chiodo, Whitehead, & Hurley, 2005). There is considerable evidence that low parent education and not speaking the language of the immigrant-receiving country are associated with negative outcomes in their children (e.g., Pong & Landale, 2012). Children may be at higher risk

242

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

when they have parents who are abusive, one or more parents live in the country of origin, or a parent has died. As illustrated in the Amy case study (Appendix Case Study 1), having an older sibling who is high achieving may be helpful. Children whose first language (L1) is not the language of the society, or who have ADHD or learning disabilities, may be especially vulnerable to the quality of instruction they receive at school and whether teachers support their integration into the school. As discussed in Chapter 2, in many countries, schools in impoverished communities often have fewer material resources (e.g., textbooks, playgrounds, computers) and human resources (e.g., experienced, highly trained teachers, mental health workers) than other schools to support children with special needs. This happens because of systemic bias and because the parents in those communities do not demand it and are not able to fundraise effectively (Pong & Landale, 2012). For a vulnerable CLD child, having a teacher who is negative or abusive, or being bullied by peers, are stressors that may precipitate behavioral, social, and emotional difficulties. Recent immigrants may also have limited social networks, a factor associated with depression (Strohmeier, Kärnä, & Salmivalli, 2011). The parents of such a child may not view it as their role, may be too busy adjusting to the immigrant-receiving country themselves, or may not feel sufficiently empowered to advocate for their child. Although they may have initial difficulties adapting to life in the immigrantreceiving country, most CLD children and youth adapt well, and are not referred to psychologists for learning or behavioral, social, or emotional difficulties. In spite of the different social environment, financial struggles, and the need to learn about a new language and culture, they are able to cope with the current stressors, and, in some cases, to deal with the trauma they have experienced. They may have average or above average intellectual abilities, be socially competent, have culturally valued talents (e.g., athletics), be competent L2 learners, have parents and families who are educated and supportive, have extended family in the immigrant-receiving country, and attend schools where they are not only accepted but appreciated. They may also live in countries where bilingualism and multiculturalism are valued. Children who have behavioral, social, and emotional difficulties may also have some resilience factors such as extended family members who have immigrated earlier, are well-adjusted, and can provide support; an older sibling who is thriving; or culturally valued talents that need to be enhanced and considered in case formulations and in developing recommendations for intervention. The previous discussion of neurological, genetic, cognitive, behavioral, sociocultural, immigration, familial, and school factors might suggest that these are separate issues. That is not the message we intend to imply. As indicated by Sameroff, Siefer, and Bartko (1997), multiple risk factors perpetuate themselves over time. Although the specific risk factors may change, the number of risk factors often does not change. Once the family has acquired basic L2 communication skills and employment, and the initial culture shock has abated, risks such

10. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

243

as parent physical illness or depression, divorce, or an adolescent who engages in substance use may emerge. Conversely, intelligent, socially competent children are more likely to adapt to new social and cultural practices, to have crossethnic friendships, to have teachers who treat them positively, and to come from families where the parents are able to cope with huge stresses (Almqvist & Broberg, 1999; Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Kawabata & Crick, 2011). Socially competent and educated parents may seek out social supports and resources to help them adjust. They may find ways to move from an impoverished neighborhood that has a high level of crime to a more heterogeneous neighborhood that is more conducive to their children’s adjustment.

LINKING ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION Academic Intervention A thorough discussion of academic interventions for CLD children and adolescents, including those with special educational needs, is beyond the focus of this book. There are, however, several key issues that psychologists should consider when linking the diagnostic formulation to recommendations for academic intervention. In some cases, the academic interventions may involve an accommodation in the process of instruction or demonstration of knowledge, and in other cases it might involve a modification of the curriculum. It is important to determine whether interventions are needed due to low levels of OLP in the L2. These might involve explicit teaching of academic language including vocabulary, morphosyntax, and cohesive devices (e.g., Baker et al., 2014), or accommodations to low levels of OLP by providing online dictionaries that provide definitions using simple terms. In some cases, longer or more intensive L2 learning programs are needed. Some students benefit from tutoring due to their minimal exposure to schooling, interrupted schooling, or their parents being unable to help them with schoolwork because of their own poorly developed L2 skills or low levels of education. Children and adolescents with LD will usually require explicit approaches for teaching reading, writing, and mathematics that have been shown to be efficacious for students with their types of difficulties. Due to the severity of the academic achievement problems experienced by some CLD students with LD, these approaches might have to be adapted. For example, phonemic awareness programs developed for children in kindergarten and Grade 1 may not be suitable for an older child or adolescent reading at that level because of the immature content and teaching process (see the Appendix, Case Study 3 for Diego and Case Study 6 for Aisha). The focus of intervention may shift when CLD children become adolescents. It may be beneficial to teach adolescents with LD and ADHD executive functioning skills or learning strategies. Some CLD adolescents who arrive in the

244

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

immigrant-receiving country as older children or adolescents, who have intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities, and who do not respond to intensive language intervention may require an alternative curriculum that focuses on basic literacy and numeracy, and teaches adaptive skills and generic and specific vocational skills. It is also important to consider assistive technology that may be helpful for CLD teens to accommodate for oral language, reading, and writing skills. If dynamic assessment reveals that specific technology is helpful, then it may be necessary to explore how it might be accessed if the student does not have a computer and Internet at home or there are financial issues that preclude purchasing relevant software. Parent involvement in their children’s education is clearly facilitative of academic achievement (e.g., Phillipson & Phillipson, 2007; Rogers, Wiener, Marton, & Tannock, 2009). As discussed in Chapter 4, parents vary in their attributions for low achievement, the amount of pressure they place on their children to achieve, and the degree of support they provide. Some parents who are immigrants or refugees may not be able to provide the supports that most parents provide because they do not speak the language of instruction, or must work long hours, precluding them from having the time to do so. Volunteer tutors may be helpful when children are motivated to learn and attend sessions reliably. In some situations, the parents are so invested in their children’s achievement that the children or teens have excessive workloads, and spend several hours per week with tutors. When this has an impact on the child’s well-being, it may be necessary to engage the parents in some counseling to help them reframe the problem and take a more balanced approach.

Psychosocial Intervention Some CLD children and adolescents have significant behavioral, social, and emotional problems that may be associated with their experiences pre- and postimmigration and require treatments for their disorders. Their parents, however, may not understand the severity of their children’s disorder, or the psychological basis of the symptoms. They may not be aware of the need for psychosocial intervention or understand that it may be beneficial. Psychotherapy, cognitive behavior therapy, play therapy, parent management training, and psychopharmacological treatments may not be commonly used in their countries of origin, and thus may be foreign to them. Due to the stigma of a mental disorder in their community, they may be reluctant to go for treatment because they fear that a community member might become aware of it. In addition, people they trust in their community (e.g., physician, religious leader) may not agree that treatment is needed. Consequently, some CLD parents may refuse treatment for their children. It is therefore important for psychologists who work with CLD families to discuss their children’s difficulties with them in a sensitive way, and frame a referral for therapy in a culturally sensitive manner.

10. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

245

Access to treatment is often a concern. Many CLD parents are not able to pay for interventions and thus are confined to settings that are publicly funded. Seemingly simple issues such as making a phone call where there is an automated system may be barriers when parents do not speak the language. The parents may work long hours, and not be paid if they do not work in order to bring their children to appointments. They may have to take public transit, so interventions that are close to their home may be desired. When appropriate, school-based interventions may be more likely to be adhered to because there are fewer barriers to access. Psychologists often make suggestions for parents to implement that have been shown to be effective in many families. These might include praising compliance, suggesting alternative positive behaviors or activities, noncontingent play, having a consistent bedtime, or restricting screen time. Some parents may resist these approaches because they are not common in their cultures. Therefore, treatments may need to be adapted to be consonant with the cultural values and norms of the family. Family therapy, for example, might have to include extended family members such as grandparents, as they may be the primary caregivers or may have significant influence on the parents’ practices. Unless the parents speak the L2 fluently, talk therapy may have to be provided in their L1. In some cultures, talk therapy is viewed favorably, whereas in others reluctance to disclose feelings may be a barrier. Some cultural groups may resist medications prescribed by physicians, preferring natural remedies prescribed by alternative health practitioners. Other cultural groups respect mindfulness approaches. Finding out what families view as therapeutic or healing may inform psychologists as to the recommendations that might be adhered to. When available, it might be helpful to refer families to agencies that are culture-specific.

CONCLUSION In this book, we have provided school and clinical psychologists who have previous training in psychological assessment with knowledge and strategies needed to assess CLD children and adolescents. The knowledge component included a summary of the research on typical language and literacy development of immigrant children and adolescents who study in their L2 in the immigrant-receiving country, and the contextual factors that affect their academic achievement and social and emotional adjustment. We also provided a discussion of the impact of culture and acculturation on their cognitive and psychosocial functioning. Geva, Barsky, and Westernoff (2000) argue that psychologists and other practitioners must acquire knowledge of the specific culture of referred children, adolescents, and families. Although this knowledge can partially be obtained by reading about their countries of origin and their cultural group using Internet sources and nonfiction and fiction books, we caution that psychologists must

246

ASSESSING CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

be aware that individuals do not necessarily subscribe to all of the values and practices of their culture, and may be at different stages of acculturation to the dominant culture of the immigrant-receiving country. The knowledge that we imparted in this book is based on research that was conducted prior to December 2013. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is considerable research documenting the language and literacy development of immigrant children who begin learning in their L2 when they begin school or shortly thereafter. The research on children who begin learning in their L2 in late childhood and adolescence is scant, and often insufficient for clinical decision making. Similarly, there is little research to guide psychologists about acculturation and factors affecting social and emotional adjustment of adolescent immigrants, as well as the relative efficacy of instructional programs for L2 children and adolescents who may have LD. Do children make more gains in acquiring OLP when they are fully integrated into regular education classrooms, attend immersion or bilingual programs with other L2 students, or attend an L2 program for a short period daily? Does their response differ depending on their age and the heterogeneity of the school community? This is important because response to intervention is an important consideration in diagnosing learning disabilities in L2 children and adolescents, as well as in linking assessment to intervention. Throughout the book, we described strategies that we have found helpful for assessing CLD children and adolescents, including observational and interview protocols, judicious use of psychological and educational tests, dynamic assessment, and response to intervention methods. We discussed clinical diagnostic formulation and clinical decision making, and included questions that psychologists should ask themselves as they strive to formulate the case. This process is also illustrated through six case studies (found in the Appendix). Although these strategies have their conceptual basis in research, most of them have not been explicitly evaluated. Geva et al. (2000) suggest that psychologists who work with CLD children and adolescents and their families also need a set of clinical skills that cannot be taught solely through reading this or any other book. Among the various interpersonal skills that are required in clinical practice, management of one’s own emotional response is especially important when working with CLD families. Although it is often necessary to convey that some cultural beliefs and practices that may be normative for the family are either incorrect (e.g., the cause of epilepsy is punishment resulting from the sins of ancestors) or illegal (e.g., female circumcision, arranged marriages for young children), doing so without expressing disdain or disgust is important in order to maintain a helpful professional relationship. Communication, engagement, and relationship skills are also essential. These skills include conveying empathy, quickly adjusting the level and pace of language to the educational level of the listener, and shifting topics and strategies when problems arise. For example, we were making very little headway with convincing a sullen 15-year-old girl who was making slow

10. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

247

progress in learning English-reading skills to consent to the assessment when we talked about finding ways to help her academically. This girl had immigrated to Canada with her father and stepmother 3 years earlier, but rejected Canadian society. All of her friends in Canada were themselves Chinese immigrants; she watched Chinese media and read Chinese romance novels. Her mother had died when she was a toddler, and her grandmother took on a parenting role. When the psychologist communicated how hard it must be to separate from her grandmother and friends, and to go to school in a foreign language, she began to cry. Until that time her parents had interpreted her behavior as being oppositional. Although returning to China was not feasible, the ensuing discussion led to a change of emphasis in the assessment and intervention. Finally, as discussed in Chapter 9, psychologists must be able to interact effectively in various institutional contexts including schools and mental health agencies. Assessments and intervention with CLD children and adolescents are both challenging and rewarding. Psychologists who work with these children and families effectively have a set of attitudes that stimulate them to find information and research, as well as develop effective strategies (Geva et al., 2000). They are flexible, open, and creative, self-directed and self-critical. They understand their own biases, and the types of issues that they find hard to handle. They are not only open to diversity, but they value and embrace it; they are eager to learn from the children and families with whom they work. These psychologists are also strongly committed to social justice. They convey to others in the community that in addition to the contributions immigrants make to the economy of the immigrant-receiving country, members of the dominant culture can learn from them and other marginalized groups because meaningful interaction with people from different cultures forces people to examine their own values. Psychologists who are committed to social justice also advocate effectively and forcefully for CLD children and adolescents, and their families, who do not receive the quality education and services they need and deserve.

APPENDIX:

T

Case Studies

he six cases discussed were all clients of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Psychology Clinic. This clinic has a training facility that provides psychological assessment and counseling to children, adolescents, and adults in Toronto, Canada, and the surrounding area. English and French are the official languages in Canada, but in Toronto, the main language spoken is English. Doctoral students in the School and Clinical Child Psychology program are required to take a practicum course where they assess and provide an instructional intervention to a culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) child or adolescent who has been referred due to learning difficulties. Most of these children and teens also have psychosocial difficulties. A faculty member provides intensive supervision to the doctoral students by attending all intake and feedback interviews, observing selected assessment sessions behind a one-way-glass mirror or using videotapes, and attending school support team meetings to facilitate collaboration with schools and implementation of recommendations. In the case studies, we refer to the doctoral student as a psychology trainee (PT) and the supervisor as the psychologist. The children, adolescents, and families described in this Appendix are typical of the cases referred to the clinic for this program. Pseudonyms are used and appropriate changes have been made to the case descriptions so that the children and families cannot be identified. The cases are presented in order of the age of the child at the time of referral. It is important to note that we selected key information from these children’s psychological reports for discussion in this book. We left out many details that might have led to identification of the families and that were not necessary to illustrate our clinical methods and decision making. The test scores in the case studies are standard scores (SS). We chose to use SS as opposed to percentiles because several of the children scored below the first percentile on many scales, and SS give a better idea of the extent of their difficulties.

250

APPENDIX

In the case studies, we refer to several tests and only provide the abbreviation or acronym for those tests. The following are the acronyms and full names of the tests that we report: Conners: Conners Rating Scales, Third Edition CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing EVT-2: Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition GORT-4: Gray Oral Reading Test, Fourth Edition KABC-II: Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition PPVT-4: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition VMI: Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration WIAT-III: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition WISC-IV: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition WJ-III Ach: Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition WRAML2: Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition

CASE STUDY 1:

Amy (Age 6 Years)

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Cultural issues in verbal expression and anxiety O Differentiating second language (L2) and a language disorder from selective

mutism O Cognitive and academic assessment with minimal expressive language O Conjoint behavior consultation in a multicultural bilingual context

REFERRAL INFORMATION (OBTAINED BY A MANDARIN-SPEAKING GRADUATE STUDENT ON THE PHONE) Amy is a 6-year-old girl whose family immigrated to Canada from China prior to her birth. Her teacher referred her because she had not spoken at school or the child care center attached to the school for the 3 years she attended. Her parents, who have a university education, own a small family restaurant. They speak Mandarin and a Chinese dialect fluently, and some conversational English. Amy’s grandparents live with them and are the chefs in the restaurant; Amy’s mother, Jia, is the server and runs the front of the house, and her father does the business work and other jobs as required. Amy’s older sister, Becky, who was born in China and came to Canada at the age of 7 years, did not speak at school for almost a year. Amy’s teacher reported that Amy has two friends who occasionally communicate on her behalf.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview Amy’s father, Kang, attended the intake interview. The same graduate student who did the phone intake interpreted linguistically and culturally. Kang

252

APPENDIX

appeared to be very anxious during the interview, answering the psychology trainee’s (PT) questions directly but not elaborating on his answers. In response to our questions, he indicated that Amy is very “shy.” At home, she initiates conversation with her sister and has recently begun to read aloud to her; otherwise, she only communicates verbally when she wants something or in response to questions. She does not engage in pretend play or any form of artistic expression. Kang indicated, however, that Amy is able to do jigsaw puzzles that are appropriate for children who are much older than her and enjoys painting by numbers. He said that Amy does not understand Mandarin, and speaks English better than the local Chinese dialect spoken at home. He also explained that Amy refuses to sleep in her own bed and will not separate from her parents or sister except to go to school. He reported that she also cries when she does not get her way or when she is encouraged to communicate outside of the home. Kang indicated that he did not speak at school when he was a child, and that several other family members in China are also “shy.” His goal for the assessment was to find out how to help Amy talk at school.

School Observation The first step of the assessment was to observe Amy in school and interview her teacher. The observation occurred in the middle of November, after she had been in her Grade 1 class for over 2 months. Amy sat at the back of the room, and appeared to be listening to the teacher in whole class lessons. She completed most seatwork (e.g., phonics activities, answering questions, math calculations) but refused to write a story or draw a picture. She cowered when the teacher came near her desk. Amy played on the playground equipment with two friends (girls she has known for 3 years since she started child care) during recess. The teacher indicated that she thinks Amy is smart, but does not know about her progress in acquiring language and literacy skills because she does not speak or read out loud. In consultation with the school psychologist assigned to Amy’s school, the teacher initiated the referral to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Psychology Clinic because she knew that Amy had not spoken at school for 3 years, and wanted guidance as to how to teach her and help her become less withdrawn.

Developing Rapport With Amy The plan for the first session was for the PT to do puzzles with Amy; to play some of Amy’s favorite games on a tablet; and to read books about making noise, talking, and overcoming fears to her. The PT read children’s books with themes about making noise and talking. Amy, however, sat on her father’s lap and cried for over an hour. She refused to take off her outer garments, and did not respond to the PT, who is an experienced master’s level psychologist. After her father

APPENDIX

253

told her firmly that she would be coming for 10 weeks whether she responded or not, she accepted a candy from the PT. The next week she agreed to play the games silently, and listen to the story with her father in the room, but was visibly anxious. During the fourth session, she agreed to allow her father to sit in the waiting room. It was only possible to begin doing informal academic assessment tasks during the fourth session. By the sixth session, Amy seemed comfortable, smiled, and seemed to enjoy the experience.

Informal Academic Assessment and Response to Intervention Due to Amy’s anxiety and inability to speak, it was not initially possible to give formal tests to assess cognitive ability, language skills, and academic achievement. We therefore opted for games and tasks that both assessed and taught academic skills but did not require an oral response. We assessed word-level reading skills through two tasks. Sight Word Bingo is a game where the two players (in this case Amy and the PT) each have a card comprising a 5 × 5 matrix, with a word in each square. In the version we played with Amy, the words were among the first ones children acquire when learning to read English (e.g., cat, dog, the, and). The game also includes a pile of flash cards on which all of the words used in the game are written. The PT read a word from the flash cards. If she or Amy had the word on the card, they covered it. The first person to have the card completely covered wins the game. New words were introduced as the term progressed. The second task involved matching onsets and rimes. Cards with rimes were placed on one table (e.g., /at/) and onsets on the other (e.g., /c/). The PT said a word, and Amy found the correct onset and placed it beside the appropriate rime. They also played card games and Math Calculation Bingo to assess math skills. By playing these games each week, Amy showed that she was acquiring sight vocabulary and decoding skills at a rate expected of children in Grade 1 and that her math skills were well above average. Although she agreed to copy letters and words, and to spell words that were in her sight vocabulary, Amy initially refused to draw a picture or write a story. We therefore employed a gradual approach to teach her to write sentences called Stretch a Sentence, where the PT provided the first word referring to “who” (e.g., The puppy) and then cued Amy to add words for doing what, where, when, and why. This technique is illustrated in several teacher-made websites. The writing activities were initiated after five sessions of working with Amy. By the end of 10 sessions, she had learned to write sentences when given this structure. Amy’s progress in response to our teaching suggested that it was not likely that she had a learning disability. Over time, as she became more comfortable, Amy began to communicate with the PT. The first step was to blow a whistle when she got Bingo, and to laugh when she heard a funny story. She then whispered responses in monosyllables, and eventually vocalized complete sentences softly. She agreed to be the caller in Sight Word Bingo, reading the words aloud. In response to the question about

254

APPENDIX

things that make her afraid, she said: “Talking.” Using a drawing of a child, and in response to yes/no questions, she indicated that her hands get sweaty, she finds it hard to breathe, and her throat hurts when she is in situations that require verbal expression, especially with adults.

Results of Cognitive Tests Amy was sufficiently comfortable to do the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) during the fourth session, and the Perceptual Reasoning and Processing Speed indices of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) during the sixth session. Her scores were as follows: PPVT – SS = 90; WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index SS = 129; Processing Speed Index SS = 108. The results of the tests indicate that Amy clearly has well-above-average nonverbal intellectual ability.

Clinical Formulation Prior to working with Amy we hypothesized several reasons for her lack of speech at school, including an intellectual disability, an autism spectrum disorder, a language disorder, and selective mutism. The results of the cognitive tests, her math skills, and her response to interventions in reading and writing ruled out an intellectual disability diagnosis. Although Amy clearly had social communication difficulties, she did not meet criteria for an autism spectrum disorder because she did not have a restrictive, repetitive pattern of behavior, interests, or activities. Her high anxiety with regard to verbal expression, her PPVT score in the average range, and the fact that she was born in Canada and had been exposed to English in school and day care for 3 years and at home talking to her sister, led to the conclusion that her severe challenges with expressive language were not primarily due to English being her second language. We concluded that selective mutism was an appropriate diagnosis, but did not rule out the possibility that she might also have a language disorder. She also initially met criteria for a separation anxiety disorder. However, as our work with her progressed she began to sleep in her own bed and bedroom, and enjoyed herself at a birthday party, suggesting that she had largely overcome her separation anxiety.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS O An errorless/desensitization approach based on McHolm’s (2010) manualized

program was recommended. This approach uses a conversational ladder to encourage verbal expression.

APPENDIX

255

O Referral of Amy and her sister (who is still described as “shy” by her parents)

to a clinic specializing in anxiety disorders to receive ongoing treatment. O Parents read the book Helping Your Child With Selective Mutism: Steps to Overcome

a Fear of Speaking, which has been translated into Mandarin (McHolm, Cunningham, & Vanier, 2005).

CONJOINT BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION The manualized program for selective mutism involves conjoint behavioral consultation. To implement this program, a psychologist consults with a parent and the teacher, who work together. We therefore met with both of Amy’s parents early in the morning, and attended a school support team meeting. At the parent meeting, we communicated the diagnosis, and discussed treatment. Amy’s mother, Jia, was communicative and much less anxious than her husband, even though this was our first meeting with her. She was highly committed to enhancing Amy’s oral expression, and agreed to be the parent who undertook the program at the school as long as she could do so at the beginning of the school day before the restaurant opened. At the school support team meeting a few weeks later, the principal of the school and Amy’s teacher were both agreeable to the manualized intervention. The school psychologist agreed to work with the OISE Psychology Clinic so that she could consult with Amy’s mother and teacher on an ongoing basis. The program involved the following steps: 1. Initially nonverbal (e.g., gestures) and written communication were accepted and reinforced by Amy’s teachers. Amy’s peers had already accepted that she communicated nonverbally.

2. Jia came to the school three times per week for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Initially she played games and had Amy read to her in a private room with the door closed. Then she invited another student, one of Amy’s close friends, to come and play. Then the door was kept open while Jia played games with Amy and the friend. As Amy’s English was much better than her mother’s, she sometimes had to explain what her mother said in Chinese to the friend. 3. As Amy was more comfortable communicating with peers than adults outside her family, verbal communication with her mother and peers was encouraged in other school contexts. 4. Amy’s teacher asked her to respond to simple closed questions involving a yes/no answer. 5. The nature of the expression required to answer the teacher’s questions was expanded. 6. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication and written communication when verbal communication is more appropriate were not accepted or reinforced.

256

APPENDIX

CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE ADAPTATIONS The following were adaptations to the assessment and conjoint behavioral consultation made due to language and cultural issues: O We frequently and emphatically explained to Kang and Jia that Amy’s lack

of oral expression at school was not simply being “shy.” Although she might eventually talk without treatment, she would, like her sister and father, probably continue to be very anxious about it. Furthermore, we explained, and Jia agreed, that schools in Canada, unlike China, demand group work and oral presentation and that Amy’s challenges might affect her academic achievement. We also wrote a letter to her family doctor, who was from the Chinese community, to convince him that a referral for Amy and her sister (who also was anxious about speaking) to a clinic that treats anxiety disorders would be worthwhile. O We assessed the family routine in order to find times when verbal communication might occur at home. We found out that Kang, whose role at the restaurant did not involve frontline work, picked Amy up at child care, and brought dinner home for himself, Amy, and Becky. Our suggestion that the family converse at the dinner table was received negatively—Jia responded that you never talk while you eat. The graduate student interpreter indicated that this is a traditional Chinese attitude. We therefore suggested that they converse any time they can. O We asked Amy’s sister Becky to tape record a conversation between her and Amy at home. We discovered that Becky was reluctant to be taped (although she speaks at school, she also continues to be anxious about speaking). As a result, we were only able to obtain a brief tape recording of Amy reading to Becky. When we replayed the tape to Amy in one of the sessions, she found it funny and laughed out loud (her first vocalization other than crying). O Amy’s teacher went on maternity leave in early April, just as we began the conjoint behavioral consultation. The principal selected her replacement carefully. Like the previous teacher, the new teacher was also nurturing and committed to helping Amy. In addition, she came from a Chinese immigrant family and spoke Mandarin. As a result, she and Jia communicated regularly and an interpreter was no longer needed in sessions with the psychologist.

Amy General risk factors

Cognitive/ Behavioral

Sociocultural/ Immigration

Familial

School/Classroom

Possible genetic risk for social withdrawal in father’s family

O
Inhibited

O
Acceptability of

O
Sister, father, and

O
Selective mutism

temperament; high anxiety O
Does not talk outside of home O
Separation anxiety

social withdrawal and shyness in the culture O
The family has few social supports and does not interact with others outside of work

extended family members did not speak at school. Minimal opportunity to speak at home. O
Family seldom converses at home and accommodates to Amy’s nonverbal communication outside the home. Jia, who has good interpersonal skills, works long hours so has not spent time with Amy.

not addressed in day care or kindergarten O
Peers view Amy as unable to talk, and accommodate to her nonverbal communication

Well-above-average nonverbal skills

High value of academic achievement

O
Strong commitment

O
Highly competent

to Amy’s academic achievement. O
Becky speaks fluent English and works with Amy. Jia participated fully in treatment

and committed school staff including teachers, principal, and school psychologist O
Amy has two friends at school

257

Neurological/ Genetic

Critical incidents/ trauma Resilience factors

Figure A.1 Amy’s clinical formulation.

CASE STUDY 2:

Boris (Age 9 Years)

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Diagnosis of an intellectual disability in an English-language learner (ELL)

child using a combination of standardized psychological and educational tests, dynamic assessment, and response to intervention O Working with educated Russian parents who have difficulty accepting the diagnosis

REFERRAL INFORMATION (OBTAINED ON THE PHONE BY A GRADUATE STUDENT WHO SPEAKS RUSSIAN) Boris is a 9-year-old boy in Grade 4 whose mother initiated an assessment due to Boris’s academic and social difficulties. Boris was born in Russia, and immigrated to Canada while in kindergarten when his father obtained a position in a mathematics department at a Canadian university. His mother is a computer programmer who works part-time from home. She supplements Boris’s education by working with him for 1 to 2 hours daily after school. Boris has no siblings. Russian is spoken at home, but both parents speak conversational and scientific (in their respective fields) English.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview Boris’s mother, Mila, attended the intake interview. The graduate student who did the phone intake attended the session to assist the psychology trainee (PT) and the psychologist, who did not speak Russian. The interview was mainly conducted in English, but Mila sometimes explained her concerns in Russian when

260

APPENDIX

she wanted to be precise; in addition, the interpreter occasionally translated our comments into Russian. Mila communicated that she was very frustrated with Boris’s school because his teacher and principal had communicated that he was a “slow learner” and wanted to place him in an mild intellectual disability (MID) class. She claimed that she had taught Boris to read and do basic math calculations over the previous summer. She was concerned, however, that he did not comprehend what he read or understand the math concepts. She felt that she could help him in math and wanted the clinic to focus on reading comprehension. She was concerned that the school focused on his social difficulties and that they did not teach him the right way (explicit instruction that involved task analysis). It was very important to Mila for Boris to acquire computer skills. As he was interested in Bob the Builder, a television character that typically appeals to preschool children, she created an e-mail account for Bob and encouraged Boris to write to him. She said that Boris had a toileting accident at school that led to peer rejection. For recreation he went to a swimming class twice per week but had not made friends there.

School and Clinic Observation The PT observed Boris in his home/school class, a noncategorical special education class where he spent half of the school day learning basic literacy and numeracy skills, his regular education classroom, and the playground. This observation confirmed Mila’s claim that Boris had basic reading decoding and math calculation skills. His teacher indicated that Boris did not understand what he read or most grade-appropriate math concepts, even though he could use rote methods to add and subtract. She said that Boris was typically compliant in class during structured lessons and when doing individual seatwork, but was disruptive in group-work settings. She described him as socially immature, reporting that he displayed inappropriate attention-seeking behaviors such as making vocal noises. Boris’s social difficulties were evident during the observations at school. He was friendly, often approaching other children to the point that he invaded their personal space. He picked his nose, and tried to rub the contents on their clothing. He talked incessantly about Bob the Builder. The children avoided him during the time of the observation and let him know that his behavior was “gross.” He did not show a wide range of emotions, typically presenting as happy, but sometimes expressing sadness, fear, and anger.

Results of Cognitive and Achievement Tests Boris obtained standard scores (SSs) between 50 and 60 on all subtests and scales of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) with the

APPENDIX

261

exception of Digit Span, which was in the low-average range. There was no differentiation between subtests that were considered to have higher or lower verbal and cultural demands. He obtained scores in the low-average range on the subtests of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III Ach) that assess word-level reading, spelling, and math calculation (Word Identification, SS = 82; Word Attack, SS = 83; Spelling, SS = 89; Numerical Operations, SS = 80). In contrast, Boris’s scores on the WJ-III Ach Passage Comprehension (SS = 65) and Gray Oral Reading Test, Fourth Edition (GORT-4) Reading Comprehension (SS = 62) were below average, and his scores on the Reading Accuracy and Fluency subtests of the GORT-4 were in the Borderline range (SS = 72–75). Boris made many substitution errors when he read, and read slowly. He typically answered literal comprehension questions correctly, repeating the information in the passage verbatim, but could not make simple inferences. He had considerable difficulty with comprehension of words conveying feelings.

Dynamic Assessment Due to Boris’s recent immigration to Canada, and because he was an ELL, we were initially concerned about the validity of the IQ tests and decided that we should determine his level of Russian language and literacy skills and examine his response to an intervention that focused on his conceptual difficulties. The graduate student who interpreted at the intake interview conducted a firstlanguage assessment in Russian. She found that Boris could speak conversational Russian at the level of a 4-year-old child, and could not read in Russian. Ten weekly 90-minute sessions were devoted to developing English-reading fluency and accuracy, enhancing vocabulary with specific reference to emotion words, and teaching comprehension strategies such as getting the main idea and predicting what would happen next. We used evidence-based strategies that were adapted to be motivating for Boris. Oral-reading fluency measures taken from Aims web were used to assess progress with text-reading fluency and accuracy, and an alternate form of the reading comprehension test given initially was used to examine progress in reading comprehension. At the end of 10 weeks, Boris could read Grade 2 level passages more quickly and accurately than at the outset, but no improvement was evident in reading comprehension.

CRITICAL INCIDENTS After one of the sessions with Boris, Mila disclosed that he had recently been diagnosed with a rare genetic syndrome whose phenotype involved intellectual disability, as well as moderate to severe behavioral difficulties including anxiety, inattention, and atypical social behaviors. Our testing and behavioral observations were consistent with this genetic syndrome.

262

APPENDIX

Boris revealed to the PT that his mother often gets very angry with him when she works with him and that he was afraid that she would die if he did not comply with her wishes or that he would be sent away to a special school. He quoted her as saying that her “head would explode” if he did not cooperate and interpreted that literally. In addition to discussing with Mila her harsh methods of teaching Boris, we reported the incident to child protection authorities. Mila was not aware that the child protection report came from our clinic.

Clinical Formulation In spite of English being Boris’s second language (L2), we felt confident in our diagnosis of a MID. The results of genetic testing and the pattern of psychological test scores were consistent with this diagnosis. Although Boris had excellent schooling, including English instruction in Russia prior to arriving in Canada and intensive help from his mother, he had challenges with understanding basic concepts in both languages. Furthermore, very few gains were seen in response to intervention. Although his basic self-care skills were mostly commensurate with his age, he did not display age-appropriate skills in housekeeping and social communication skills. As he was friendly and able to engage in reciprocal social interaction, the presentation was not entirely consistent with an autism spectrum disorder, in spite of considerable social difficulties and some fixed interests. His social immaturity, however, exceeded his cognitive problems.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS O Continued half-time placement in noncategorical special education class

in home school with reevaluation of placement prior to entering secondary school. O Explicit instruction of concepts for literacy and numeracy. O Social skills training program (Wiener & Harris, 1997) and social stories (Gray & Garand, 1993). O Circle of friends (Newton, Taylor, & Wilson, 1996).

Communication With Family and School Communication between Mila and the PT was strained, in part because Mila was not respectful, possibly because the PT was a student. The psychologist, however, was able to maintain a good working relationship with Mila by meeting with her on three occasions while the PT was working with Boris. The psychologist established trust and respect by being warm and empathic while simultaneously conveying her academic and clinical credentials. Mila disclosed that the family immigrated to Canada mainly because, in Russia, Boris would be

APPENDIX

263

in a segregated special education school where he would have no opportunities. Although the psychologist communicated that she felt that the MID diagnosis is likely appropriate, she also agreed to attend a school support team meeting with Mila where she advocated for continued placement in the noncategorical special education class with review of diagnosis and placement in 3 years. The school agreed with this proposal. We specifically scheduled the feedback meeting at a time when Boris’s father could attend and asked the Russian interpreter to come as well. This was helpful because the parents were highly educated and appreciated an explanation of Boris’s functioning that was comprehensive. Knowing their backgrounds in mathematics and computers, we provided and interpreted the test scores. The interpreter was helpful in explaining specific vocabulary they did not know in Russian. We had hoped that Boris’s father would be more likely to accept the MID diagnosis, but found that he was not highly involved with Boris and mainly deferred to his wife’s views. Because the school had agreed to continue placement in the noncategorical class, Mila agreed that the report could be sent to the school psychologist.

Boris General risk factors

Neurological/ Genetic

Cognitive/ Behavioral

Sociocultural/ Immigration

Rare genetic syndrome typically associated with intellectual disability

O
Mild intellectual

High orientation toward academic achievement which is consistent with culture; predisposed family to have difficulty with accepting MID diagnosis

disability O
Social skills difficulties O
Emotion recognition problems

Familial

School/Classroom

Mother uses a harsh O
Ongoing peer approach to teaching rejection at school Boris that appears to be O
In spite of many causing anxiety. accommodations, insufficient explicit academic and social skills instruction

264

Critical incidents/ trauma Resilience factors

Pleasant and accommodating personality— compliant

Figure A.2 Boris’s clinical formulation. MID, mild intellectual disability.

Mother used helpful Very accommodating teaching strategies. to both academic Both parents are highly and social needs educated and employed in professional positions.

CASE STUDY 3:

Diego (Age 11 Years)

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Assessment of an English-language learner (ELL) child who has a severe language

disorder O Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) O Advocacy for special education and mental health support

REFERRAL INFORMATION (OBTAINED BY A GRADUATE STUDENT WHO SPEAKS SPANISH) Diego was referred by his ELL teacher due to concerns about his ability to acquire academic skills. She indicated that he was still functioning at a kindergarten level in reading and a Grade 1 level in math, even though he had been in Canada for 3 years. She was also concerned about his attention difficulties. Diego’s teacher said that her principal would not refer Diego for a psychological assessment or consider special education support until he had been in Canada for 5 years. She informed us that Diego was a refugee from a Latin American country where there was considerable violence, and that he lived with his mother, two older brothers (ages 13 and 20 years), and one older sister (age 16 years). The first language of the family was Spanish, and his mother did not speak English. She said that a social worker from a refugee settlement center provided support to the family. The main contact was his oldest brother’s partner, who was concerned about Diego and willing to bring him to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Psychology Clinic.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview The intake interview was attended by the psychology trainee (PT), the psychologist, the graduate student who did the phone interview, Diego, his mother

266

APPENDIX

(Margarita), and his brother’s partner (Ximena). Margarita and Ximena said that life was very hard in their home country. Diego and one of his brothers found their murdered father on a beach when Diego was 6 years of age. Diego did not attend school because the family had to move frequently over the next 2 years in order to keep safe. One of the Catholic Church congregations in Toronto sponsored them as refugees. Although all of Diego’s siblings were struggling academically, they were successful at acquiring basic literacy and numeracy skills in English. Unlike Diego, his siblings had been to school in Latin America and had learned to read in Spanish. At the interview Diego expressed concern that other children might see him working on basic skills and felt embarrassed about his difficulty. He was relieved to learn that he would be working with the PT in a separate room behind closed doors.

School Observation and ELL Program Teacher Interview Diego spent 45 minutes per school day in the ELL class, where his teacher worked with him and several other students to increase vocabulary and conversational skills, and teach English reading and writing. She had 10 other students in the class, all of whom quickly surpassed Diego in their reading skill levels after spending 6 months in Canada. She had tried various strategies to teach him to read, including sight word approaches and phonics approaches. She said that she needed help to find out what else she could do. She reported that Diego had acquired basic conversational skills, had several friends at school, and enjoyed playing soccer with the other boys. Other than the 45 minutes in the ELL class, Diego was in a Grade 6 class that had 31 students. He sat at the back of the room, and spent his time coloring pictures and doing puzzles because he did not have enough English to understand the lessons and could not read. The ELL teacher said that, due to her concerns, Diego was referred for an audiological assessment. The results showed that his hearing was in the normal range.

Results of Formal Cognitive Tests We attempted to administer formal cognitive tests that did not have significant language and cultural knowledge demands once rapport was achieved. Diego, however, experienced anxiety about the testing, low frustration tolerance, and challenges in paying attention to task. As a result, we abandoned administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II). Diego, however, enjoyed solving matrices, and scored in the low–average range on the Matrix Reasoning subtest of the WISC-IV. His Visual Memory Index score on the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML2; standard score, SS = 100) and Visual Motor Integration score on the VMI (SS = 92) were in the average range.

APPENDIX

267

Oral Language Proficiency in English and Spanish Diego’s receptive and expressive vocabulary scores were well below average (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition [PPVT-4] SS = 46 and Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition [EVT-2] SS = 42). His vocabulary was similar to that of a 4-year-old child. Diego’s scores on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) were all below the first percentile (Phonological Awareness SS = 52, Phonological Memory SS = 57, Rapid Naming SS = 46). Not surprisingly, analysis of language samples revealed that Diego had problems following multistep directions, and even short directions often had to be rephrased or repeated. He did not accurately discriminate between who, what, when, where, why, and how questions; in addition, he frequently misunderstood words. He had considerable difficulty expressing himself in English, often having to resort to gesturing or drawing pictures to convey what he meant. When he was frustrated he often said “Never mind” and refused to continue. He did not use tenses correctly, made subject–verb agreement errors, confused the pronouns he and she, and omitted most articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. For example, he said, “I go computer” when he wanted to ask whether he could use the computer. As Diego was not regularly exposed to English outside school, a graduate student whose first language (L1) was Spanish interviewed him. Similar to English, his vocabulary was limited, and he did not use grammatically correct sentences. He needed extensive scaffolding to answer questions.

Academic Achievement—Response to Intervention When Diego began the assessment he could recognize only seven letters of the English alphabet, including the five in his first name. His only sight word was his first name. He had no knowledge of sound–symbol relationships but knew that letters made specific sounds. He could copy letters and words and his printing was legible. He was able to count to 100, had number conservation, and recognized the digits from 1 to 9. We used several alphabet games such as Letter Bingo and an adaptation of Tic Tac Toe with letters other than X’s and O’s to teach the letters of the alphabet. We also tried an adaptation (using pictures that were age appropriate) of Jolly Phonics (Lloyd, 1992), an explicit multisensory approach to teach sound–symbol relationships normally used in kindergarten or Grade 1. After six sessions of using these approaches, they were abandoned because Diego could not retain the information taught. Although it was possible that he might retain the concepts and skills if they were practiced daily, he refused to do these exercises at school in front of other students or to practice at home. We therefore decided to focus on basic functional skills such as printing Diego’s last name and phone number. We used multisensory techniques and visual imagery

268

APPENDIX

to teach his last name and lots of repetition, chunking, and practice to teach his phone number. He was motivated to learn these skills and mastered them after 7 weeks of work. Given his very slow response to intervention, we decided that Diego was not able to learn to read at this time. However, when he brought in his brother’s I-Pod Touch, and showed that he recognized Icons, we introduced him to Text to Speech software. He quickly learned to manipulate the computer and use this software to read to him.

Social, Behavioral, and Emotional Functioning Although his difficulties with language and attending to task were immediately evident, Diego otherwise had good interpersonal skills. On most days, he was compliant during the sessions unless he became frustrated. At school, he had many friends with whom he played soccer. He worked hard to learn his phone number so that he could give it to a girl who asked him for it. His academic selfconcept was low, and he was anxious about others realizing how disabled he was. Given the variability in his mood, and the fact that during some of our sessions he was very tired, we wondered whether he might be suffering from PTSD. Once he became comfortable with the PT, he spontaneously confided that he did not sleep well sometimes because of nightmares about finding his father. She proceeded to sensitively ask questions about how this affects him. His response was that he tries to forget about the event by playing soccer and keeping active. He also had negative beliefs about himself, although it was not clear whether those were associated with the trauma.

Clinical Formulation The data we collected from the developmental and immigration history, our observations of Diego, formal tests, and interviews with parents and teachers all pointed to a diagnosis of a language disorder and a specific learning disorder in reading, mathematics, and written expression. Although English was Diego’s second language, and he had interrupted schooling, his language and reading difficulties considerably exceeded what would be expected after spending 3 years in Canada, especially considering that he spent 40 minutes per school day in an ELL program. Although his siblings also struggled in school, Diego had significantly more problems acquiring English oral language proficiency (OLP) and word-level reading skills than they did and he demonstrated similar problems in both Spanish and English. He also had severe challenges with phonological processing and retrieving verbal information. Diego’s scores on tests measuring spontaneous processing and visual memory were low average or average, ruling out the diagnosis of an intellectual disability. Diego also reported symptoms and impairment consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD.

APPENDIX

269

Key Recommendations O Full-time placement in a special education class for students with language

O O O O

disorders with a teacher who is skilled at teaching students to use assistive technology Explicit instruction of English vocabulary that is typically known by children in kindergarten A combination of approaches to teach Diego to read functional words and do basic calculations Text to speech and speech to text software for reading Intensive psychotherapy for PTSD

Advocacy With School System Unfortunately, the school district committee that makes decisions about special education placement initially refused to place Diego in a special education class in spite of the clear recommendation in the psychological report, and the psychologist’s attendance at the meeting. The basis of the refusal was the belief by an influential special education consultant who chaired the committee that it was inappropriate to conclude that second-language (L2) students might have a language disorder or learning disability (LD) if they were in Canada for less than 5 years. With the permission of Diego’s mother, the psychologist then argued the case in writing with the director of special education and the chief psychologist of the school district, indicating that there would be an appeal unless he received the supports he needed. After a phone call with the chief psychologist, an agreement was made that Diego would be placed in a class for students with language disorders after an assessment by the school district speech and language pathologist. Although the speech and language pathologist agreed with our diagnosis, Diego did not receive special education assistance for another year. By then, he had entered puberty, and his emotion regulation had deteriorated, causing him to become very angry and to engage in disruptive behaviors at school. He had begun receiving treatment for PTSD.

Cognitive/ Behavioral

Sociocultural/ Immigration

Familial

General risk factors

Severe difficulties with phonological processing, verbal memory, and verbal retrieval

O
Emigrated from a

O
Mother has no

Critical incidents/ trauma

PTSD likely associated with finding his murdered father

Unsafe environment for 2 years prior to immigration and lack of treatment of PTSD for 4 years after immigration

Good interpersonal skills when not distressed

Church and social worker from refugee settlement center provided family with financial supports and other resources

Diego

Neurological/ Genetic

270 Resilience factors

Physically attractive

Figure A.3 Diego clinical formulation. PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.

country with high levels of violence O
Ongoing poverty O
Lived in a social housing complex in an at-risk neighborhood

School/Classroom

O
Did not go to school in his education and cannot country of origin due to read. safety concerns O
Few opportunities for O
School in Canada did employment for mother not provide appropriate or siblings. special education support O
Father deceased.

Brother’s partner spoke fluent English, cared for Diego, and transported him to places where he received support for his academic and emotional problems.

ELL teacher who cared about Diego tried to teach him oral English and to read, and referred him for an assessment even though she was not supported by the school principal

Khalil (Age 14 Years)

CASE STUDY 4:

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Assessment of oral language proficiency (OLP) and literacy in first language

(L1) and second language (L2) O Challenges of satellite students (who live in the immigrant-receiving country

without their parents) O Diagnosis of learning disability (LD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disor-

der (ADHD) in a CLD adolescent

REFERRAL INFORMATION Khalil is a 14-year-old boy in Grade 9 who was born in Canada to parents who immigrated to Canada from Iran a year earlier. Since then he has lived for various periods of time in Canada and Iran. Although he speaks Farsi with his family, his schooling has mainly been in English. A counselor at his private boarding school in Toronto referred him for an assessment due to problems with reading, writing, and completing work. She indicated that his father was deceased and his mother lives in Iran. His siblings (sister, aged 20 years, and brother, aged 23 years) attend university in Toronto.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview Khalil and his siblings attended the intake interview. The psychology trainee (PT) who worked with Khalil spoke both English and Farsi, and the interview was conducted in both languages so that the psychologist, who did not speak Farsi, would

272

APPENDIX

understand what was said. They reported that Khalil lived in Canada for the first 5 years of his life. After his father died when he was 5, the family moved back to Iran with his mother (whose L1 is Farsi and who does not speak English). While in Iran he spent 5 years in a private school studying in English, with approximately an hour per day devoted to learning to read and write in Persian/Farsi. The family moved back to Canada for 2 years when Khalil was 10; at that time he attended a Canadian public school. When he was 12 years old he moved back to Iran with his mother where he attended the same private school as previously. His siblings, however, remained in Canada to attend university (sister is a science undergraduate and brother is studying engineering). When he was 14 years old, his family decided that Khalil should attend a private boarding school in Toronto because they felt he might get better supports for his learning difficulties. Khalil spends at least 1 day each weekend with his siblings who share an apartment.

Phone Discussion With School Counselor The school counselor indicated that Khalil had struggled academically since he began attending the school 2 months earlier. He was initially not placed in an English-language learner (ELL) program because almost all of his previous schooling had been in English, but when his teachers realized that he was having difficulties comprehending instructions, his English course was changed to an ELL course. The counselor reported that his teachers were impressed with his math and computer skills, and that Khalil was popular with his peers.

Results of Cognitive Tests in L1 and L2 We decided to administer the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) because of research suggesting that it minimizes cultural bias and because it allows for calculation of a Mental Processing Index (IQ) score using scales that measure fluid intelligence (Sattler, 2008). Khalil’s Mental Processing Index score was in the high-average range (SS = 117). His scores on the Simultaneous Index (SS = 118) and Learning Index (SS = 111) were also in the high-average range and his score on the Planning Index was in the superior range (SS = 125). His score on the Sequential Index was in the average range (SS = 97). Due to the somewhat lower score on the Sequential Index, we examined his memory by administering the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML2) and the subtests from the Working Memory Index of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Although Khalil’s visual (SS = 106) and verbal (SS = 100) memory scores were average, he obtained below average scores on measures of verbal working memory (WRAML2 Verbal Working Memory scale score = 6, WISC-IV Letter Number scale score = 5). The PT administered the WISC working memory tests in both English and Farsi (scores reported above are in English), with

APPENDIX

273

similar results. Khalil also obtained a low-average score on the Processing Speed Index of the WISC-IV (SS = 80). The results of the cognitive tests indicated that Khalil has above average nonverbal intellectual ability, average verbal and visual memory skills, and significant difficulties with verbal working memory and processing speed.

OLP in English and Farsi Due to the unavailability of instruments in Farsi, formal tests of OLP were administered in English. Language samples were used to examine OLP in both languages. The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) was administered due to the referral information indicating reading difficulties. Khalil obtained borderline or below average scores on the Phonological Awareness (SS = 76), Phonological Memory (SS = 70), and Rapid Naming (RAN; SS = 69) scales. The RAN digits, numbers, and objects tests were also given in Farsi with only minimal improvement. Khalil’s receptive and expressive vocabulary was very weak in English; he scored below the first percentile on both the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) and the Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (EVT-2). His English vocabulary was similar to that of a 7-year-old child. Although he could understand instructions in simple sentences, he was confused when given instructions in compound and complex sentences. He had difficulty understanding sentences with conjunctions that were frequently used in school textbooks such as however, although, and either or. He was able to understand complex sentences and sentences with similar conjunctions in Farsi. Consequently, the PT frequently translated instructions into Farsi for him when it was necessary for him to understand those instructions precisely. On the other hand, Khalil performed in the average range (SS = 94) on the Story Recall test on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III Ach). Although he sometimes might not have understood some aspects of the story, he could repeat most of it verbatim. With regard to English expressive language, Khalil clearly had attained Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS). He conversed fluently and easily with the PT and peers at school using short simple sentences. Due to his weak vocabulary and reading difficulties (see below), he struggled with Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), with his comprehension of cognitive academic language being somewhat stronger in Farsi than in English.

Academic Achievement in L1 and L2 The PT assessed Khalil’s reading, writing, and math skills on the WJ-III Ach. His English reading, spelling, and written expression scores were below average (Broad Reading SS = 63; Broad Writing SS = 61) with very little differentiation between subtests. His English reading and writing skills were similar to a

274

APPENDIX

child in late Grade 2. The PT assessed Khalil’s literacy skills in Farsi by having him read passages from basal readers used in Iran and write a paragraph in Farsi. Khalil’s reading skills were only slightly better in Farsi than in English; he could read Grade 3 level texts fluently and accurately, but made many errors on Grade 4 level texts. His spelling was poor even though the language, which uses the Arabic alphabet and is agglutinative, is more transparent than English. Some of his difficulties pronouncing words might have occurred because in more advanced texts there is no notation for short vowels; those sounds must be inferred from the meaning of the passage. In contrast to his literacy skills, Khalil scored in the average range on the Math Calculation (SS = 109) and Applied Problems (SS = 100) tests on the WJ-III Ach. The PT translated some of the questions on the Applied Problems subtest into Farsi when Khalil did not understand them. Consistent with his slow processing speed, Khalil’s score on the Math Fluency subtest was below average (SS = 69).

Assessment of ADHD Symptoms The PT observed that Khalil had difficulty with sustaining his attention to task and with executive functioning. In spite of his well above average score on the Planning scale of the KABC, he did not seem to know how to organize his work, and frequently forgot or lost his materials. Khalil, his brother, and science teacher completed the Conners Rating Scales—Third Edition (Conners, 2008). His brother and teacher rated Khalil in the Clinical range on the DSM Inattentive scale (T > 80), and Khalil rated himself in the borderline range (T = 67). All scores on the Hyperactive-Impulsive scale were in the average range, even though he was described as fidgety at times. The PT also conducted a diagnostic interview (the Parent Interview for Child Symptoms, see Chapter 8) in Farsi on the phone with Khalil’s mother. Her behavioral observations confirmed the symptoms that were elevated on the Conners. She also expressed that these behaviors were evident even when Khalil was in preschool.

Social and Emotional Functioning Not surprisingly, Khalil’s academic self-concept was low. Although not clinically depressed, he felt that academic success was hopeless and that it was pointless to work at it. He claimed that his family was disappointed in him due to his academic problems, and was very worried about his achievement. When he first arrived at his new school, Khalil made several friends who were also boarders. During the 4 months we worked with him, however, he gradually spent less time with them, preferring to play computer games on his own. The school counselor indicated that he was verbally aggressive toward his friends, argued, and lost his temper. His brother indicated that Khalil was oppositional toward him as

APPENDIX

275

well. Khalil’s mother did not observe these behaviors when he lived with her in Iran, describing Khalil as calm and compliant.

Clinical Formulation Our diagnostic challenge was to determine whether Khalil’s low academic achievement was due to a LD, or resulted from interrupted schooling that was mainly in his L2. In favor of the LD diagnosis is that his word-level reading and spelling skills in both languages were well below average. As discussed in Chapter 3, most children acquire these skills in their L2 relatively quickly. Furthermore, his deficits in phonological processing, processing speed, and verbal working memory likely explain his word-level reading and writing difficulties. It was difficult to determine whether Khalil’s very weak English vocabulary and somewhat weak Farsi vocabulary was only a result of English being his L2 and minimal schooling in Farsi, or whether he also had a language disorder. Although his siblings acquired strong English OLP skills, they began their education in Canada, whereas he began school in Iran. Nevertheless, the combination of poor English OLP and word-level reading problems clearly impacted his reading comprehension. There was considerable evidence in support of a diagnosis of ADHD with predominantly inattentive symptoms, and that the resulting impairment was moderate in that it affected Khalil’s performance in school and relationship with peers. Although not clinically depressed at the time of the assessment, we were concerned that Khalil was a risk for depression due to his serious academic difficulties and increasing social isolation.

Key Recommendations O During the assessment, the PT taught Khalil word-level reading skills using

the Phonological and Strategy Training (PHAST) program, an explicit English word-level reading program that provides a combination of phonological and strategy training and has considerable research showing that it is efficacious (Lovett et al., 2008). Although only the first seven lessons were given, Khalil demonstrated that he was acquiring the strategies and was able to apply them. Consequently, continuation of this program was a key recommendation. The PT agreed to work with him weekly for several months to ensure that he learned and consolidated the skills. O Assistive technology to compensate for language, reading, and written language difficulties including an online dictionary and speech to text and text to speech programs were recommended, as it may take a year or more before Khalil acquires adequate decoding skills, and his challenges with reading fluency and spelling may be ongoing.

276

APPENDIX

O Specific instruction in the vocabulary needed for the classroom and courses

he is taking. O Explicit instruction in learning strategies needed to plan and organize

schoolwork. O A trial to determine whether Khalil’s inattention might be reduced with stim-

ulant medication. O Assessment accommodations including providing instructions in both

English and Farsi, and extended time on tests. O Due to his interest and abilities with computers, encouragement to enroll in a

computer club at school.

Khalil General risk factors

Neurological/ Genetic

Cognitive/Behavioral

Sociocultural/ Immigration

277

O
Frequent moves verbal working memory, between Canada processing speed and Iran due to difficulties associated with political situation a learning disability in Iran O
High levels of inattention O
English-language O
As a result of not acquiring learner word-level reading skills, Khalil does not read independently; his ongoing low levels of OLP may be due to minimal exposure to language through print O
Low-academic self-concept O
Phonological processing,

Critical incidents/ trauma Resilience factors

Familial

School/Classroom

Separation from mother may be associated with current emotional difficulties.

O
Frequent school

changes O
Schools he has

attended have very high academic standards O
Has not received special education instruction or accommodations

Father died when he was 5 years of age.

O
Well above average

nonverbal skills O
Good social skills and computer skills

Figure A.4 Khalil’s clinical formulation.

High value of academic achievement

O
Strong commitment

to Khalil’s academic achievement and wellbeing. O
Siblings see him weekly.

School referred him and is willing to implement recommendations

CASE STUDY 5:

Changgun/Brandon (Age 15 Years)

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Assessment of executive functioning O Diagnostic decision making when parent’s cultural perspective on behavioral

problems differs from that of the immigrant-receiving country O Acculturation conflict between parent and adolescent

REFERRAL INFORMATION Changgun, who prefers to be called Brandon, was referred by his mother, Eunjee, when he was 15 years old due to poor and declining school performance and oppositional behavior at home. He was born in Canada shortly after his parents emigrated from Korea. When Brandon was 6 years old, his parents separated and his father returned to Korea. Brandon’s mother works as an administrator for a mid-size company in the technology field in the suburb where they live. Brandon has no siblings.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview Brandon and his mother attended the interview, which was conducted in English because Eunjee speaks fluent English and Brandon does not speak Korean. During this interview Brandon was sullen and uncommunicative, stating that he came because his mother forced him to. Eunjee said that she thought that Brandon had “oppositional defiant disorder” because he was

280

APPENDIX

argumentative and disobedient and at one point had hit her during an argument. She said that his grades declined substantially in high school and were well below her standard of at least 80%. His average grade on his last report card was 71%. She was also upset that he had stopped violin lessons and was disgusted that he played guitar in a band with boys from school. She said that he went to parties on the weekend instead of studying, often coming home after midnight. Eunjee reported that Brandon was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—Combined Type by a child psychiatrist when he was in Grade 1 because of his teacher’s concern about his challenges with attending to task, staying in his seat, and impulsivity. Both Brandon and his mother indicated that they did not like the idea of taking medication. They said that Brandon speaks on the phone with his father once per month and visits him every 2 to 3 years.

Interview With Brandon Once he met alone with the psychology trainee (PT), Brandon reiterated that he was only doing the assessment because his mother forced him to. Nevertheless, once his mother was not in the room he disclosed that she had been physically and verbally abusive toward him for many years. He described her as having traditional Korean values; she wants him to study, play classical music, go to a Korean heritage language program, and only interact with other Korean boys. He said that he sees himself as Canadian, has Canadian friends, and does things that other Canadian boys do. He disclosed that as long as he could remember, his mother yelled at him for not being the child she wanted, often telling him that he was bad and stupid. She also used corporal punishment (spankings) frequently when he was younger. He indicated that she was very angry on the day he brought home his report card and said he would not be allowed to go out with his friends. During the ensuing argument she approached him and he thought she would hit him. He said that he pushed her away more violently than he intended. During the interview Brandon agreed to cooperate with the assessment, indicating that he was doing so because the PT was “nice and respected him.”

Results of Cognitive and Achievement Tests Brandon obtained a Perceptual Reasoning Index score in the superior range (SS = 125), and scores in the average range (SSs of 105–106) on the other three Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) scales. His math scores on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III Ach) were in the high-average range (Broad Math SS = 116) and his reading and writing scores were solidly average (SS = 96–110).

APPENDIX

281

Executive Functioning In spite of average scores on the WJ-III writing tests, Brandon had challenges with writing a persuasive essay. Although he was able to identify the structure of paragraphs and essays, he had considerable difficulty planning and organizing his writing and did not edit his work. The PT examined his notebooks and interviewed him about his studying using the protocol shown in Table 7.1. Brandon claimed that he hated homework, and did not consistently complete it. He felt that studying was a waste of time because he could only concentrate for 15 minutes at most and did not know how to do it. He reported that he gets distracted easily when he tries to do his work, mostly because he does not turn off his cell phone and spends time texting his friends and checking Facebook. Although his mind wanders in class, he said that he attends regularly and mostly remembers the content. He indicated that note taking is a waste of time, and his notebooks reflected that. He had all of his papers in one binder, which was bursting due to the volume. He had dividers for different subjects, but did not put papers in any order. There were additional papers at the bottom of his backpack. In spite of his challenges with organizing his work and studying, Brandon claimed that he is able to concentrate on tests and exams because he knows that they are important. The PT taught Brandon several strategies for note taking and studying. He politely said that they took too much time and that he was not motivated (“too lazy”) to use them at present.

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Functioning Results of the Conners Rating Scales confirmed that Brandon’s ADHD symptoms were still present. His mother’s ratings were in the clinical range (T > 80) on all of the ADHD Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) scales and on the Oppositional Defiant Disorder scale. She also rated Brandon in the borderline range on the Conduct Disorder scale (T = 65). Brandon’s math teacher rated his functioning in the clinical range on the DSM-IV Inattentive scale (T = 71) and in the borderline range on the DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive scale (T = 68). Brandon rated himself in the borderline range on both DSM-IV ADHD scales (T = 67 and 66). Both Brandon and his teacher rated Brandon in the average range on the Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder scales. The results of the Conners supported our observations with regard to Brandon’s ADHD symptoms; he displayed problems with giving close attention to details, sustaining attention on tasks, following through on instructions, organizing tasks and activities, and keeping track of his belongings. He was reluctant to engage in tasks that involved sustained mental effort, and was forgetful in daily activities. With regard to hyperactivity and impulsivity, he was restless and fidgety, blurted out answers prematurely, paced instead of staying

282

APPENDIX

seated when given the option, talked excessively, and interrupted others. His ADHD symptoms clearly impaired his academic functioning and, as a result, his relationship with his mother. Brandon was consistently cooperative during the sessions with the PT. Although school reports described his inattention, his teachers rated him as polite and cooperative in the school setting. Brandon has a large peer network and three close friends with whom he spends a lot of time practicing music and playing computer games. Although his mother does not approve of his friends, Brandon’s reports as well as his teacher’s ratings of his peer relations on the Conners, in the average range, suggest that they do not engage in deviant behaviors.

Individual Interview With Eunjee While the PT was working with Brandon, the supervising psychologist met with Eunjee. In this interview, it became clear that although she is educated and has been in Canada for 17 years, she has traditional Korean values. She is unable to empathize with her son, show affection, and see that he has many positive qualities. Although she has friends at work with whom she socializes, she has few meaningful social supports. Due to the stigma she feels in relation to her son, she does not confide in her friends or seek their help. She described herself as tenacious; when she wants Brandon to do something she nags him until she gets compliance. She confessed that both she and Brandon lose their temper easily. Although she knows that her son behaves in ways that are typical of Canadian society, and that his grades would be viewed as acceptable by most Canadian parents, she did not express any inclination to change her views or behavior.

Clinical Formulation The results of the assessment supported the previous diagnosis of ADHD— Combined Presentation. Although his ADHD symptoms were associated with functional impairment in school performance, there was no evidence of a specific learning disorder. The question of whether a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder was appropriate was somewhat more complicated. Brandon clearly loses his temper, and is annoyed, angry, and resentful toward his mother. He also actively defies or refuses to comply with her requests. His mother is clearly distressed by his behavior. In all other contexts and relationships, however, he does not display these oppositional behaviors. There is clearly a very high and maladaptive level of conflict between Brandon and his mother. In part this is because, similar to most adolescents with ADHD, he does not conform to the model minority stereotype of the Asian student who is highly motivated to do schoolwork and who excels in school.

APPENDIX

283

Key Recommendations O Eunjee was referred for individual psychotherapy due to her distress and low

levels of social support. She consented because she felt incapable of dealing with her son. O Brandon was taught specific research-based strategies for studying, writing, and organizing his work. He said he was not currently motivated to implement them but would keep the binder of strategies he was given in case he was motivated in the future. O We suggested a trial of stimulant medication for Brandon’s ADHD symptoms. He listened attentively when the PT provided him with information about the benefits and side effects of medication. He did not agree to a trial at the time, but said he might take medication if he needed it at a later date. O A Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy program for Brandon and Eunjee was recommended (Haydicky, Schecter, Wiener, & Ducharme, in press). Although this program has had promising results in reducing parent– adolescent conflict and parenting stress, they did not follow through on the recommendation.

Changgun/ Brandon

Neurological/ Genetic

General risk factors

284

Critical incidents/ trauma

Resilience factors

Sociocultural/ Cognitive/Behavioral Immigration

Familial

School/Classroom

ADHD and less than ideal school grades are stigmatized in culture

O
Parents separated, father

O
Heterogeneous

Anger toward mother

Father moved back to Korea leading to minimal contact

Acculturation conflict— Eunjee expects a high level of compliance and academic performance. Brandon is not motivated to comply or achieve at that level.

High-school entryless scaffolding of academic work

O
Well-above-average

High value of academic achievement leads to efforts to provide resources

O
Mother highly educated

Brandon has many friends at school

O
High levels of

inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity consistent with ADHD—combined presentation O
Possibly insecure attachment Puberty

visual spatial abilities. Above average math skills O
Good social skills, musical

Figure A.5 Changgun/Brandon’s clinical formulation. ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

moved back to Korea when Brandon was 6 years old. O
Eunjee adheres to the model minority stereotype. O
Eunjee has few social supports.

and speaks English well. O
Willing to go for therapy.

neighborhood with families from many cultural groups facilitates Brandon’s acculturation into Canadian society, but is associated with his mother’s disapproval

Aisha (Age 17 Years)

CASE STUDY 6:

ISSUES ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE STUDY O Oral language proficiency (OLP), literacy, educational programming, and

career planning for an older adolescent O Cognitive and emotional implications of living in a refugee camp and school

struggles O Resilience O School and community collaboration O Role of tutor/mentor

REFERRAL INFORMATION Aisha was referred by a support worker at Pathways, a program for adolescents in low-socioeconomic status (SES) communities that provides individual tutoring, family support, and funds for postsecondary education for adolescents who fulfill their contractual obligations to participate in tutoring twice per week. Aisha had been in Canada for 4 years prior to the referral. She attended a large vocational secondary school that provided an intensive program for Englishlanguage learner (ELL) students, as well as vocational programming. In spite of these supports, she had not learned to read and her oral language skills were very weak. The support worker who made the referral indicated that Aisha was born in a refugee camp, and immigrated to Canada with her parents at the age of 13. Aisha’s parents spoke French and were learning English. Aisha was the second oldest of six children. Her 16-year-old brother had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and suspected autism spectrum disorder. Three of her younger siblings were in elementary school and were not experiencing difficulty. The youngest child was born in Canada and was 1 year of age when the assessment began.

286

APPENDIX

ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS Intake Interview Aisha, her father (Olivier), the psychology trainee (PT), and the psychologist attended the interview. An interpreter was not needed because the father, the psychologist, and the PT spoke French. At the interview, however, we learned that Aisha did not speak French. The family spoke Kirundi at home; her parents had learned French at school. As a result, the interview was conducted in a combination of English and French, with Aisha’s father translating some concepts into Kirundi for Aisha. In order to involve both Aisha and her father, we needed to speak slowly and use the simplest terms possible. Olivier explained that due to war in their native country, he and his wife, who was pregnant with Aisha, and Aisha’s older brother fled to a refugee camp in a neighboring country. At the time, food was scarce, and the family was in considerable danger. Aisha was born in the refugee camp. Although life was very hard, he indicated that she was not exposed to violence. Schooling was sporadic, and when she attended she struggled. He said that while her motor milestones were achieved within normal limits, she was delayed in understanding and speaking Kirundi. Aisha said that she was very distressed about not having learned to read. At school she attended the ELL program for half of the school day, and obtained credits in physical education. The remainder of the day was spent in a co-op placement, where she obtained credits for working in a preschool. She said this was difficult because she was not able to read directions for games or read to the children. With tears in her eyes Aisha indicated that she would like to become a nurse, but knew that this was not possible because of her academic problems. Her father then reported that Aisha had many strengths. She helped her mother take care of her younger siblings, and was an excellent athlete. Aisha then reported that she was on the basketball and track and field teams at school, and had many friends.

Oral Language Proficiency With regard to receptive vocabulary, Aisha’s score on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) was well below average (SS = 42), similar to a 4-year-old child. She was not able to identify some basic body parts (e.g., nails, toes, thighs), couldn’t follow simple instructions if they contained more than one or two steps, and did not understand basic words needed for academic learning (e.g., wider, farther, pair, whole). Although she was able to correctly identify and say her name, the days of the week, her teacher’s name, school name, and home address, and express her basic needs, she was unable to name the months of the year, elaborate on ideas, and express abstract concepts. She provided minimal information when asked about a topic. She did not use verb tenses correctly and could only speak in short, simple sentences, usually consisting of three to four words.

APPENDIX

287

Her phonological processing scores on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) showed difficulties with Phonological Awareness (SS = 58) and Phonological Memory (SS = 76) but average performance in Rapid Automatized Naming (SS = 97). She performed at chance level on the Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task (Table 5.2), and was unable to detect rhyme.

Cognitive and Academic Test Results Aisha scored in the average range (SS = 94) on the Simultaneous Index of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), but obtained below average scores (SSs 60–70) on the Learning and Planning Indexes. On the Sequential Index she obtained a score in the average range on a visual sequencing task (SS = 90) and a below average score (SS = 68) on an auditory sequencing task. Similarly, Aisha obtained a score in the average range (SS = 91) on the Visual Memory scale of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML2), and below average scores (SSs ranging from 60 to 68) on the other scales. Aisha’s scores were variable on the Math subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III); she scored in the low-average range (SS = 81) on the Numerical Operations subtest, which assessed paper-and-pencil calculation skills. Her math reasoning score was well below average (SS = 51), largely due to the language demands of the test. Nevertheless, she demonstrated that she has basic functional math skills. She reliably named Canadian coins and their values, counted money, and made change. She understood budgeting and time. We did not use a formal test to assess reading or written expression due to the severity of Aisha’s reported difficulties.

Dynamic Assessment/Response to Intervention Aisha could only read 6/200 of the most common words in written English (Dolch Word List) and had no strategies to decode words she did not know. An initial attempt to use an explicit multisensory phonics program (adaptation of Jolly Phonics) failed; Aisha seemed unable to learn the sound–symbol correspondences. In view of her relative strength in rapid automatized naming and visual memory, we attempted to teach sight words, focusing on the Dolch Word List, functional words (including words needed to navigate the Toronto subway so that she could take public transit independently), and words that were important to her, including words used for sports and sports equipment and apparel. We used a strategy that we called The Word Hospital. Words were placed on flash cards with a picture (most taken from a Google image search) and a sentence on the back of the card that used the word. Words that Aisha did not know were placed in a section called Intensive Care, those that she had recently learned moved to Inpatient, and those she knew reliably were

288

APPENDIX

moved to Outpatient. We also found that due to her low levels of OLP, Aisha did not know the meaning of some of these words. Consequently, this approach served to increase receptive and expressive vocabulary. Once we established that Aisha was making substantial progress during and between our sessions with her, the Pathways tutor took over working with her on this part of the program. Aisha practiced her words for at least an hour per day. After 16 biweekly sessions, which was the end of the formal assessment period, she had learned 141 words. After 18 months, she had learned over 1,000 words and the tutor consulted us about methods to teach Aisha decoding skills. We reassessed Aisha’s word-level reading, and found that she was now able to read the Grade 2–level Oral Reading Fluency passages from Aimsweb. Aisha also said that she could read books to her youngest sibling, who was now 3 years of age. We suggested that the tutor teach Aisha the strategies from the PHAST program (e.g., Lovett et al., 2008). Although the progress was slow, Aisha was then able to learn and apply the strategies. Given Aisha’s OLP limitations, when she began the assessment she was embarrassed to speak in class and in her co-op placement. We therefore began each session with 15 minutes of conversation. Aisha was asked to describe something that had happened in the past few days, with the PT modeling appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure and elaborating on her sentences. Aisha became more fluent and willing to speak over the course of the 16 sessions, often confiding her feelings about personal issues. Once the assessment was complete, the tutor continued with this strategy.

Social and Emotional Functioning Aisha presented as mildly depressed when we first met with her. Both she and her father described her as feeling sad most of the time, and having low self-esteem. Aisha tearfully expressed that she felt that she could never learn anything, and would not finish high school. She said that she had felt this way for a long time. Her hair and grooming suggested little care. As will be discussed later (Feedback With Aisha and Her Family), she did not have any of these symptoms of depression after the assessment. Because Aisha and the PT quickly established a trusting relationship, and spent 15 minutes talking at the beginning of every session, we did not use any formal instruments to assess social and emotional functioning. Through their conversations it became evident that Aisha had strong interpersonal skills, as well as many friends. She was highly regarded by her peers because of her athletic abilities and leadership skills. She also had positive relationships with her parents and siblings, and did not seem to resent having to help her mother take care of the younger children. Although her academic self-concept was low, contrary to the initial descriptions at the intake interview, her self-esteem seemed to be intact.

APPENDIX

289

Clinical Formulation The diagnostic problem was to determine whether Aisha’s language and reading difficulties were a result of having to learn in her L2 and having meager schooling until she was 13 years of age, or due to a learning disability (LD; Specific Learning Disorder). The factors that led us to decide that she had a LD were her significant problems with phonological processing and acquiring word-level reading skills, her father’s report that her language development was delayed in Kirundi compared to her younger siblings, and her slow progress in acquiring English OLP in spite of 3 years of intensive instruction in an ELL program. When she began the assessment and intervention she met criteria for a mild Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia) but her depressive symptoms were no longer evident after the 16 weeks of the assessment. Furthermore, Aisha was resilient; she desperately wanted to be successful, and worked very hard to learn to read. With the appropriate supports, she was beginning to acquire functional literacy.

Key Recommendations O Ongoing language and reading instruction with her Pathways tutor. Once the

tutor no longer worked with Pathways, she continued to work with Aisha on a voluntary basis because they had connected so well. Aisha worked hard, and consequently made the type of progress that made the experience gratifying. The tutor also felt that she learned a great deal from the collaboration with the PT and psychologist. O Assistive technology for reading and writing. O Vocationally oriented school program.

Feedback With Aisha and Her Family The feedback interview with Aisha occurred after 16 weeks of assessment and intervention. She came independently because her father had another urgent commitment. She was dressed fashionably, and had a big smile. She felt that she had worked hard and accomplished a lot, and expressed her immense gratitude toward the PT and her tutor. Her English vocabulary was still limited (e.g., she did not know the word technology, but understood when we explained that it was a word for things like computers, televisions, and cellphones). Even though her reading was still at a Grade 1 level, she could now send text messages. With the help of Google Translate (which she discovered that she could use as a rudimentary text to speech program), she read e-mails and Facebook messages from her African friends who were spread all over the world. She was able to take public transit to where she was going instead of being dependent on her father. She

290

APPENDIX

was more realistic about career options, intending to work in an industry connected with sports. Prior to the interview, and using the Word Hospital, the PT taught Aisha to read all of the words in the simple report in Figure A.6. When we reviewed the report with her she was very happy that she could read it, and said she would follow the recommendations. We also gave her a comprehensive written report to give to the school and other agencies that might work with her. We later had a telephone interview in French with her mother and father.

School and Community Consultation and Collaboration The PT and the Pathways support worker met with the school team at the technical high school on several occasions. In accordance with our recommendation, the school applied for a laptop computer and appropriate assistive technology for Aisha. Once her English was more fluent, they also arranged a co-op placement in a sporting goods store. Due to her success with this supervised placement, the store later hired her for part-time work.

APPENDIX

291

Date of Birth—January 3, 1994; Assessment Date—April 14, 2012 Psychologist—Judith Wiener, PhD You are good at O
Working hard O
Remembering shapes and

pictures

It is hard for you to O
Read O
Write O
Learn English

O
Using shapes and pictures to

help you think O
Making friends O
Helping your mother O
Sports O
Understanding money

You learn best when O
You look at pictures O
You do things over and over O
You use computers and smart phones to read to you and write for you

These things are hard because O
You have a learning disability O
You do not understand how to make words out of sounds and letters O
You sometimes do not remember words and what they mean

Things that teachers, tutors, and parents can do to help O
Teach you new words O
Teach you how to sound out words O
Give you the right software for your computer and app for your smart phone so that you can use them to read and write O
Help you find the right job for you O
Tell you when you are doing things well

Things you can do to help yourself O
Keep on working hard to learn

new words and other things O
Find out about new software to help you with reading and writing O
Read books to your little brother O
Play sports because you are good at it, it makes you feel good, and you keep fit O
Talk English to other kids at school as much as you can

O
Work with your tutor O
Tell your tutor which new words you want to learn O
Go to all of your classes O
Text your friends O
Write e-mails to your friends O
Do not use Facebook or text in class

Figure A.6 Psychological report for Aisha. Note: With the exception of the heading, this simple report was written solely with vocabulary that Aisha knew at the time it was written.

Aisha General risk factors

Neurological/ Genetic

292

Cognitive/Behavioral

Sociocultural/ Immigration

Familial

School/Classroom

Mother had poor nutrition while pregnant with Aisha

O
Severe difficulties

O
Lived in an African

O
Older brother has an

O
Did not have

with phonological processing and verbal memory O
Depression prior to working with her as a result of ongoing school failure

refugee camp for 13 years O
In Canada, lives in a social housing complex where there are problems with poverty and violence

intellectual disability and possible autism spectrum disorder. O
With six children, father was not able to make enough money to move the family above the poverty line. He worked nights.

consistent schooling prior to immigrating to Canada O
School in Canada did not initially provide appropriate special education support

Physically attractive and athletic

Excellent interpersonal skills in spite of language difficulties; highly motivated to learn

Pathways program mitigated the problem of living in an at-risk neighborhood

Parents are educated Once her difficulties and supported their were identified, the children’s learning to the school collaborated extent they could. They with Pathways were learning English, program and the and spoke French clinic, following (Canada’s other official through on key language) fluently. recommendations

Critical incidents/ trauma Resilience factors

Figure A.7 Aisha’s clinical formulation.

References

Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 407–412. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Almqvist, K., & Broberg, A. G. (1999). Mental health and social adjustment in young refugee children 3 ½ years after their arrival in Sweden. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(6), 723–730. Al-Yagon, M., Cavendish, W., Cornoldi, C., Fawcett, A. J., Grünke, M., Hung, L. Y., … Vio, C. (2013). The proposed changes for DSM-5 for SLD and ADHD: International perspectives–Australia, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(1), 58–72. American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association (APA). (1990). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. American Psychologist, 48, 45–48. Antecol, H., Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Trejo, S. J. (2003). Immigration policy and the skills of immigrants to Australia, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 38, 192–218. doi:10.2307/1558761 Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140–147. Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Structures of explanations in history textbooks or so what if Governor Stanford missed the spike and hit the rail? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 181–194. Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1985). Producing “considerate” expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 247–274. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national Literacy Panel on

294

REFERENCES

language minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 341–348. doi: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Reflecting a nation: Stories from the 2011 Census, 2012–2013. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2071.0 Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52, 33–35. Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, . . . Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx Bauer, S. C., & Msall, M. E. (2010). Kindergarten readiness after prematurity: Integrating health, development, and behavioral functioning to optimize educational outcomes of vulnerable children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 16(4), 313–322. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.126 Bauermeister, J. J., Canino, G., Polanczyk, G., & Rohde, L. A. (2010). ADHD across cultures: Is there evidence for a bidimensional organization of symptoms? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(3), 362–372. Beck, J. S., Beck, A. T., & Jolly, J. B. (2001). Beck youth inventories. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Beech, J. R., & Keys, A. (1997). Reading, vocabulary and language preference in 7- to 8-yearold bilingual Asian children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 405–414. Beiser, M., Simich, L., Pandalangat, N., Nowakowski, M., & Tian, F. (2011). Stresses of passage, balms of resettlement, and posttraumatic stress disorder among Sri Lankan Tamils in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(6), 333–340. Benson, E. (2003a). Intelligent intelligence testing. American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 34(2), 48. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/ intelligent.aspx Benson, E. (2003b). Intelligence across cultures. American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 34(2), 56. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. (2006). The state of second-language reading research. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 88–95). Oxford: Elsevier. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D, Trivedi, P., Olson, E., Gould, L., Hiramatsu, S., … York Westhaggen, S. (2010). Applying the multiple dimensions of reading fluency to assessment and instruction. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 3–18. doi: 10.1177/0734282909336083 Berninger, V. W., & May, M. O. (2011). Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment for specific learning disabilities involving impairments in written and/or oral language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 167–183. Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10472-004 Bialystok, E. (2009). Second-language acquisition and bilingualism at an early age and the impact on early cognitive development. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.enfant-encyclopedie.com/pages/PDF/second_language.pdf Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44.

REFERENCES

295

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1983). Development of intelligence in children. Reprint 1983. Salem, NH: Ayer. Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Burkowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7(4), 765–785. Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com/docview/618936324?accountid=14771 Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage. Bowers, P. B., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 5, 69–85. Branum-Martin, L., Fletcher, J. M., & Stuebing, K. K. (2013). Classification and identification of reading and math disabilities: The special case of comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 490–499. Breznitz, Z. (1997). Reading rate acceleration: Developmental aspects. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 427–441. Brislin, R. W., & Kim, E. (2003). Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of time. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 52(3), 363–382. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00140 Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1046–1050. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005a). Ecological systems theory (1992). In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Biological perspectives on human development (pp. 106–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005b). The bioecological theory of human development (2001). In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Biological perspectives on human development (pp. 3–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bronstein, I., & Montgomery, P. (2011). Psychological distress in refugee children: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(1), 44–56. Brüggemann, C., & Bloem, S. (2013). The potential of international student assessments to measure educational outcomes of Roma students. Sociologica, 45(6). Retrieved from http://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/08271321Bloem%20-%20Bruggemann%20 OK%202.6.2013.pdf Buck, J. (1981). The house-tree-person technique: A revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D): An interpretation manual. New York, NY: Bruner/Mazel. Butler, Y. G., & Hakuta, K. (2006). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 114–144). Oxford: Blackwell. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.

296

REFERENCES

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice. gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html Caplan, N., Choy, M. H., & Whitmore, J. K. (1992). Indochinese refugee families and academic achievement. Scientific American, 266, 36–42. Caravolas, M., & Bruck, M. (1993). The effect of oral and written language input on children’s phonological awareness: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 1–30. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1993.1001 Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Seidlová Málková, G., & Hulme, C. (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1398–1407. Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 4, 451–461. doi: 10.1037/a0012769 Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14(3), 295–309. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/616532869?accountid=14771 Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459–478. Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (Eds.). (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. New York, NY: Academic Press. Carroll, J. B. (1975). The teaching of French as a foreign language in eight countries. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell. Carter, J. A., Lees, J. A., Murira, G. M., Gona, J., Neville, B. G., & Newton, C. R. (2005). Issues in the development of cross-cultural assessments of speech and language for children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40(4), 385–401. Carver, R. P. (1997). Reading for one second, one minute, or one year from the perspective of rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 3–43. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 49(2), 278–293. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(6), 1142–1157. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591–616. Chen, X., He, Y., De Oliveira, A. M., Coco, A. L., Zappulla, C., Kaspar, V., … Desouza, A. (2004a). Loneliness and social adaptation in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: A multi-national comparative study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1373–1384. Chen, X., Zappulla, C., Coco, A. L., Schneider, B., Kaspar, V., De Oliveira, A. M., … DeSouza, A. (2004b). Self-perceptions of competence in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: Relations with social and school adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(2), 129–138. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000334 Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 20–28.

REFERENCES

297

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of basic reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400. Cho, Y., & Haslam, N. (2010). Suicidal ideation and distress among immigrant adolescents: The role of acculturation, life stress, and social support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(4), 370–379. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9415-y Chorpita, B. F., Yim, L., Moffitt, C., Umemoto, L. A., & Francis, S. E. (2000). Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: A revised child anxiety and depression scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(8), 835–855. Cirino, P. T., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 744–781. Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275–303. Cole, E., & Siegel, J. A. (2003). School psychology in multicultural inclusive communities: Responding to children’s needs. In E. Cole & J. A. Siegel (Eds.), Effective consultation in school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 222–258). Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe and Huber. Collett, B. R., Ohan, J. L., & Myers, K. M. (2003). Ten-year review of rating scales. V: scales assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(9), 1015–1037. Collier, V. P. (1989). Synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509–531. Collins, L., & White, J. (2011). An intensive look at intensity and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 106–133. Collins, W. M., & Levy, B. A. (2008). Developing fluent text procession with practice: Memorial influences on fluency and comprehension. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 133–139. Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, É., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29–43. Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners’s rating scales (3rd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems. Cossu, G. (1999). Biological constraints on literacy acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 213–237. Costigan, C. L., Hua, J. M., & Su, T. F. (2010). Living up to expectations: The strengths and challenges experienced by Chinese Canadian students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(3), 223–245. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/74676 6594?accountid=14771 Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26, 55–72. Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality of Individual Differences, 24(1), 123–130. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475–494. Crowe, L. M., Beauchamp, M. H., Catroppa, C., & Anderson, V. (2011). Social function assessment tools for children and adolescents: A systematic review from 1988 to 2010. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(5), 767–785.

298

REFERENCES

Cumming, A. (Ed.). (2012). Adolescent literacies in a multicultural context. New York, NY: Routledge. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemination and Assessment Center. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage-language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 585–592. Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1973–1990. Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274. Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34–54. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299. D’Angiulli, A., Siegel, L. S., & Maggi, S. (2004). Literacy instruction, SES and wordreading achievement in English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 202–213. da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic, and working memory skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing, 7, 139–153. Dana, R. H. (2000). Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dana, R. H. (2005). Multicultural assessment: Principles, applications, and examples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/620700886?accoun tid=14771 David, D., Koyama, E., & Geva, E. (2007, July). Phoneme discrimination in primary school children who are English as a second language learners and reading disabled: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Scientific Studies of Reading (SSR) Conference, Prague. de Jong, P., & van der Leij, A. (2003). Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read in a regular orthography. Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 22–49. Deater-Deckard, K. (2004). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 314–332. Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Assessment.

REFERENCES

299

Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warner, M. M., & Schumaker, J. B. (1981). Instructional practices for promoting skill acquisitions and generalizations in learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 415–421. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., & Ellis, E. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(3), 170–179. Deuchar, R., & Bhopal, K. (2013). ‘We’re still human beings, we’re not aliens’: Promoting the citizenship rights and cultural diversity of traveller children in schools: Scottish and English perspectives. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 733–750. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1450174108?accountid=14771 Dickson, P., & Cumming, A. (1996). Profiles of language education in 25 countries: Overview of Phase 1 of the IEA language education study. Slough: NFER. Ding, Y., Guo, J. P., Yang, L. Y., Zhang, D., Ning, H., & Richman, L. C. (2013). Rapid automatized naming and immediate memory functions in Chinese children who read English as a second language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 347–362. Döpfner, M., Steinhausen, H. C., Coghill, D., Dalsgaard, S., Poole, L., Ralston, S. J., & Rothenberger, A.; ADORE Study Group. (2006). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of ADHD assessed by the ADHD Rating Scale in a pan-European study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 15 Suppl 1, I46–I55. DosReis, S., Barksdale, C. L., Sherman, A., Maloney, K., & Charach, A. (2010). Stigmatizing experiences of parents of children with a new diagnosis of ADHD. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 61(8), 811–816. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103. Ducharme, J. M., Davidson, A., & Rushford, N. (2002). Treatment of oppositional behavior in children of parents with brain injury and chronic pain. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(4), 241–248. doi: /10.1177/10634266020100040601 Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2010). Family-centered help giving practices, parentprofessional partnerships, and parent, family, and child outcomes. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. 362–379). New York, NY: Routledge. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Enabling and Empowering Families. Durgunog˘lu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465. Durgunog˘lu, A. Y., & Verhoeven, L. (1998). Epilogue: Multilingualism and literacy development across different cultures. In A. Y. Durgunog˘lu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 289–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eberly, J. L., Joshi, A., & Konzal, J. (2007). Communicating with families across cultures: An investigation of teacher perceptions and practices. The School Community Journal, 17(2), 7–26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/622113305?accountid =14771 Education Review Office. (2010). Promoting success for Maori students: Schools’ progress. Author. Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/Review-Process/ERO-Pacific-Strategy-2013–2017 Egan, G. (2009). The skilled helper: A problem-management and opportunity-development approach to helping. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole – Cengage Learning.

300

REFERENCES

Ehntholt, K. A., & Yule, W. (2006). Practitioner review: Assessment and treatment of refugee children and adolescents who have experienced war-related trauma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(12), 1197–1210. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/621523686?accountid=14771 Eisenchlas, A. S., Schalley, C. A., & Guillemin, D. (October, 2013). The importance of literacy in the home language: The view from Australia. Sage Open, 3(4). doi: 10.1177/2158244013507270 Elbaum, B. (2002). The self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of comparisons across different placements. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 216–226. Elbro, C., Daugaard, H. T., & Gellert, A. S. (2012). Dyslexia in a second language? A dynamic test of reading acquisition may provide a fair answer. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 172–185. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0071-7 El-Hassan Al-Awad, A. M., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2002). The application of the Conners’ rating scales to a Sudanese sample: An analysis of parents’ and teachers’ ratings of childhood behaviour problems. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 75(2), 177–188. doi: 10.1348/14760830216963 Elik, N., Wiener, J., & Corkum, P. (2010). Preservice teachers’ open-minded thinking dispositions, readiness to learn, and attitudes toward learning and behavioural difficulties in students. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 127–146. doi: 10.1080/02619760903524658 Erdos, C. A., Genesee, F., Savage, R., & Haigh, C. A. (2011). Individual differences in second language reading outcome. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 3–25. Everatt, J., Smythe, I., Adams, E., & Ocampo, D. (2000). Dyslexia screening measures and bilingualism. Dyslexia, 6(1), 42–56. Exner, J. E. (1993). The Roschach (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Fairbairn, M. B. (2006). English language learners’ performance on modified science test item formats: A pilot study. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (p. 337, Order No. 3248008, The University of Iowa). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305337 564?accountid=14771. (305337564) Fandrem, H., Ertesvåg, S. K., Strohmeier, D., & Roland, E. (2010). Bullying and affiliation: A study of peer groups in native and immigrant adolescents in Norway. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(4), 401–418. doi: 10.1080/17405620802335075 Fandrem, H., Strohmeier, D., & Roland, E. (2009). Bullying and victimization among native and immigrant adolescents in Norway: The role of proactive and reactive aggressiveness. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(6), 898–923. doi: 10.1177/0272431609332935 Farhood, L., Zurayk, H., Chaya, M., Saadeh, F., Meshefedjian, G., & Sidani, T. (1993). The impact of war on the physical and mental health of the family: The Lebanese experience. Social Science & Medicine, 36(12), 1555–1567. Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711–738. Fazel, M., Wheeler, J., & Danesh, J. (2005). Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7000 refugees resettled in western countries: A systematic review. Lancet, 365(9467), 1309–1314. Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Green, J. G., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D. (2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37(3), 234–247. Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R., & Gross, S. (1997). The learning potential assessment device (pp. 297–313). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/619261872?accountid=14771

REFERENCES

301

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Reynolds, M. R. (2013). Broad and narrow CHC abilities measured and not measured by the Wechsler scales: Moving beyond withinbattery factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(2), 202–223. doi: 10.1177/0734282913478047 Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. New York, NY: Wiley. Flaugher, R. L. (1978). The many definitions of test bias. American Psychologist, 33, 671–679. Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Classification and identification of learning disabilities. In B. Wong & D. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Elsevier. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Rourke, B. P., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(9), 555–561, 573. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 618266587?accountid=14771 Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98–108. Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 49–65. Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 277–294. Friedman, E., Kriglerová, E. G., Kubánová, M., & Slosiarik, M. (2009). School as ghetto: Systemic overrepresentation of Roma in special education in Slovakia. Budapest: Roma Education Fund. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 4(1), 112–130. doi: 10.1891/194589504787382929 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Hamlett, C. L. (2003). The potential for diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 13–22. doi:10.1177/073724770302800303 Fung, K., Lo, H. T., Srivastava, R., & Andermann, L. (2012). Organizational cultural competence consultation to a mental health institution. Transcultural Psychiatry, 49(2), 165–184. Funk, M., Drew, N., Freeman, M., Faydi, E., & World Health Organization. (2010). Mental health and development: Targeting people with mental health conditions as a vulnerable group. Geneva: WHO Press. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ publications/2010/9789241563949_eng.pdf Gajjar, E., Humphries, T., Peterson-Badali, M., & Otsubo, H. (2000). A new scale to assess culture-specific beliefs and attitudes about epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 1(4), 235–255. Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. García Mayo, M., & Lecumberri, M. L. G. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a second language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

302

REFERENCES

Garnett, B. (2010). Toward understanding the academic trajectories of ESL youth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(5), 677–710. Garnett, B., Adamuti-Trache, M., & Ungerleider, C. (2008). The academic mobility of students for whom English is not a first language: The roles of ethnicity, language, and class. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54, 309–326. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78(4), 1343–1359. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Nugent, L. (2012). Independent contributions of the central executive, intelligence, and in-class attentive behavior to developmental change in the strategies used to solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 49–65. Geiger, B. (2012). Separate but equal: Teachers’ intolerance for ethnic and cultural diversity as experienced in 6th grade Israeli classrooms. Psychological Studies, 57(1), 75–85. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12646-011-0141-7 Genesee, F. (2009). Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 2, Special Issue. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/ JARL/Jarl-Vol2Art2-Genesse_EN.pdf Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processes, and oral language. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 153–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Georgas, J. (2003). Cross-cultural psychology, intelligence, and cognitive processes. In J. Georgas, L. G. Weiss, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Culture and children’s intelligence: Cross cultural analysis of the WISC-III (pp. 23–37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Geva, E. (2000). Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in L2 children–beliefs and research evidence. Dyslexia, 6(1), 13–28. Geva, E. (2006). Second-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 123–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Geva, E., Barsky, A., & Westernoff, F. (2000). Interprofessional and diversity informed practice. In E. Geva, A. Barsky, & F. Westernoff (Eds.), Interprofessional practice with diverse populations: Cases in point (pp. 1–28). Westport, CT: Auburn House. Geva, E., & Clifton, S. (1994). The development of first and second language reading skills in early French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 646–667. Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1819–1845. Geva, E., & Herbert, K. (2012). Assessment and interventions in English language learners with LD. In B. Wong & D. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 271–298). New York, NY: Elsevier.

REFERENCES

303

Geva, E., & Lafrance, A. (2010). Linguistic and cognitive processes in the development of spelling in ELLs: L1 transfer, language proficiency, or cognitive processes? In A. Durgunog˘lu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Dual language learners: Their development and assessment in oral and written language. New York, NY: Guilford. Geva, E., & Massey-Garrison, A. (2013). A comparison of the language skills of ELLs and monolinguals who are poor decoders, poor comprehenders, or normal readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(5), 387–401. Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and memory correlates of academic skills in first and second languages. Language Learning, 43, 5–42. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–30. Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1993). The concurrent development of spelling and decoding in two different orthographies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 383–406. Geva, E., & Wang, M. (2001). The role of orthography in the literacy acquisition of young L2 learners. Invited review article. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), 21, 182–204. Geva, E., & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes, Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31–58. Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50(1), 121–154. Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49, 183–217. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions. Odessa, FL: PAR. Goffman, F. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goldstein, S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2012). Autism spectrum rating scales. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Goodman, A., Heiervang, E., Fleitlich-Bilyk, B., Alyahri, A., Patel, V., Mullick, M. S., … Goodman, R. (2012). Cross-national differences in questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(8), 1321–1331. Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Retrieved from http://www.sdqinfo.com/ Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7(3), 125–130. Goodstein, H. A. (1981). Are the errors we see the true errors? Error analysis in verbal problem solving. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 1, 31–45. Gottardo, A., Javier, C., Mak, L., Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2014). The role of first and second language skills in reading comprehension in Spanish-speaking English learners: An examination of bidirectional cross-linguistic relations. Written Language and Literacy, 17, 62–88. Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first and second language factors related in predicting school language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344.

304

REFERENCES

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 7, 6–10. Government of Canada. (1982). Constitution Act, Part I: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ottawa, Canada: Queen’s Printer. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice .gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Teaching writing processes and selfregulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and legibility in Grades 1–9. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52. Granena, G., & Long, M. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343. Gray, C. A., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories: Improving responses of students with autism with accurate social information. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 8(1), 1–10. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You cannot take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115–1124. Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57, 521–535. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/617956383?accountid=14771 Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). The five assessment issues you meet when you go to heaven. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 303–310. Guerra, N. G., Hammons, A. J., & Otsuki Clutter, M. (2011). Culture, family and children’s aggression: Findings from Jamaica, Japan and Latinos in the United States. In X. Chen & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional development in cultural context (pp. 281–304). Westport, CT: Guilford Press. Guglielmi, R. S. (2012). Math and science achievement in English language learners: Multivariate latent growth modeling of predictors, mediators, and moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 580–602. doi: 10.1037/a0027378 Guron, L. M., & Lundberg, I. (2003). Identifying dyslexia in multilingual students: Can phonological awareness be assessed in the majority language? Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 69–82. Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Pena, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 212–224. Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. (2009). School-based consultation: The science and practice of indirect service delivery. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 591–635). New York, NY: Wiley. Hajioff, S., & McKee, M. (2000). The health of the Roma people: A review of the published literature. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 864–869. Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 31–38. Hakuta, K., & McLaughlin, B. (1996). Bilingualism and second language learning: Seven tensions that define the research. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 603–621). New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., & Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific

REFERENCES

305

learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 223–236. Hall, G., & Patrinos, H. (2010). Indigenous peoples, poverty and development. (Discussion paper, submitted to the World Bank). Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank. org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1121703274255/1439264-1292452038445/7623985 -1292452065048/full_report.pdf Hand, L. (1998). Communication disorders. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 39–66.) Sydney: Prentice Hall. Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Harter, S. (2012). Construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Harvey, V. S. (2006). Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 5–18. Haydicky, J., Schecter, C., Wiener, J., & Ducharme, J. (in press). Evaluation of MBCT for adolescents with ADHD and their parents: Impact on individual and family functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, J. (2009). From idea to text. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 65–79). London: Sage. Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 19–30. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Helman, C. G. (1984). Culture, health and illness (3rd ed.). London: Butterworth Heinemann. Hinshaw, S. P. (2005). The stigmatization of mental illness in children and parents: Developmental issues, family concerns, and research needs. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 714–734. Ho, C. S., Chan, D. W., Tsang, S. M., & Lee, S. H. (2002). The cognitive profile and multipledeficit hypothesis in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 38, 543–553. Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C. W., Wakely, M. B., de Kruif, R. E., & Montgomery, J. W. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57–68. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253–270. Hornby, G., & Woodward, L. J. (2009). Educational needs of school-aged children born very and extremely preterm: A review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 247–266. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9109-8

306

REFERENCES

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hospital for Sick Children. (2013). Parent interview for child symptoms. Toronto, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sickkids.ca/MS-Office-Files/Psychiatry/17145Administration_Guidelines_PICS6.pdf. Hoza, B., Gerdes, A. C., Mrug, S., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M., Gold, J. A., … Wigal, T. (2005). Peer-assessed outcomes in the multimodal treatment study of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 74–86. Hu, H. M., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430. Humphries, T. G., Coleman-McKay, R. A., Greenberg, D., James, F., Oram, J., & Rosenfield, J. (2000). Neuropsychological and interprofessional practice with a Latina student with epilepsy. In E. Geva, A. Barsky, & F. Westernoff (Eds.), Interprofessional practice with diverse populations: Cases in point (pp. 163–182). Westport, CT: Auburn House. Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 19–32. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (30, SLD). (2004). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23 International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities (IARLD). (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.iarld.com/ Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2012). Cross language activation of phonology in young bilingual readers. Reading & Writing, 25, 1327–1343. Jean, M., & Geva, E. (2009). The development of vocabulary in English as a second language children and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 153–185. Jean, M., & Geva, E. (2012). Through the eyes and from the mouths of young heritage language learners: How children feel and think about their two languages and why. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 49–80. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. Jing, L., Tindall, E., & Nisbet, D. (2006). Chinese learners and English plural forms. The Linguistics Journal, 1. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics-journal.com/2006articles .php Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., & Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective metaanalysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 3–18. Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com/docview/622165831?accountid=14771 Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (2001). Families of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Review and recommendations for future research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 183–207. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97. Jun, S. W., Ramirez, G., & Cumming, A. (2010). Tutoring adolescents in literacy: A meta analysis. McGill Journal of Education, 45, 219–238.

REFERENCES

307

Kahn-Horwitz, J., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. (2011). Acquiring the complex English orthography: A triliteracy advantage? Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 136–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01485.x Kahn-Horwitz, J., Shimron, J., & Sparks, R. L. (2005). Predicting foreign language reading achievement in elementary school students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 527–558. Kahn-Horwitz, J., Shimron, J., & Sparks, R. L. (2006). Weak and strong novice readers of English as a foreign language: Effects of first language and socioeconomic status. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 161–185. Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (Eds.). (2001). The role of fluency in reading competence, assessment, and instruction: Fluency at the intersection of accuracy and speed [Special issue]. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203–210. Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Good, R. H., & Harn, B. A. (2000). The use of fluency-based measures in early identification and evaluation of intervention efficacy in schools. In M. Wold (Ed.), Time, fluency, and dyslexia (pp. 307–333). Parkton, MD: York Press. Kamin, L. J. (1995). The pioneers of IQ testing. In R. Jacoby & N. Glauberman (Eds.), The bell curve debate: History, documents, opinions. New York, NY: Times Books. Kates, G., & Gergely, V. (2011, April 7). For Roma, life in US has challenges: People commonly known as “Gypsies” face stereotyping, discrimination. Voice of America. Retrieved from http://www.voanews.com/content/for-roma-life-in-us-has-challenges-119394819/ 163156.html Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1994). Kaufman functional academic skills test. Bloomington, MN: Pearson. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman test of educational achievement (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., & Rao, U. (1997). Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for school-age children–present and lifetime version (K-SADS-PL): Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 980–988. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61908906 7?accountid=14771 Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1177–1183. Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2011). The significance of cross-racial/ethnic friendships: Associations with peer victimization, peer support, sociometric status, and classroom diversity. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1763–1775. Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Child, parent and family dysfunction as predictors of outcome in cognitive-behavioral treatment of antisocial children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 271–281. Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370. Keung, Y. C., & Ho, C. S. H. (2009). Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in learning to read Chinese (L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 103–112. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/10722/60751 Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanishspeaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 146–157. Kim, R. Y. (2002). Ethnic differences in academic achievement between Vietnamese and Cambodian children: Cultural and structural explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 213–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1533–8525.2002.tb00047.x

308

REFERENCES

Kirmayer, L. J., Brass, G. M., Holton, T., Paul, K., Simpson, C., & Tait, C. (2007). Suicide among Aboriginal people in Canada. Ottawa: The Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/suicide.pdf Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 68–96). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Kohn, S. W., Scorcia, D., & Esquivel, G. B. (2007). Personality and behavioral assessment: Considerations for culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. In G. Esquivel, E. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Multicultural handbook of school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 289–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Koppitz, E. M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton. Kovacs, M. (2011). Children’s depression inventory 2. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. Kozey, M., & Siegel, L. S. (2008). Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Psychology, 49, 162–171. Kozulin, A. (1999). Cognitive learning in younger and older immigrant students. School Psychology International, 20(2), 177–190. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/do cview/619406382?accountid=14771 Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lam, K., Chen, X., Geva, E., Luo, Y. C., & Li, H. (2012). The role of morphological awareness in reading achievement among young Chinese-speaking English language learners: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1847–1872. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9329-4 Langberg, J. M., Dvorsky, M. R., & Evans, S. W. (2013). What specific facets of executive function are associated with academic functioning in youth with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1145–1159. Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Harley, B. (1998). A case-study of compact core French models. In S. Lapkin (Ed.), French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies (pp. 3–31). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovsk, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 15–30. Lee, E., Bifoi, A., Yoon, E., Pez, O., & Kovess Masfety, V. (2012, October). Mental health disparities between Roma and non-Roma children in Romania and Bulgaria. EUPHAEuropean Public Health Conference, Malta, October 7–12, 2012. Retrieved from http:// www.google.cz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2Faspher.org%2Fmod%2Ffile%fety2Fdownload.php%3Ffile_g uid%3D9699&ei=tVLYUqflO5OO7QavyoD4Dg&usg=AFQjCNE2tDeLwqNU-D69GXYIc0gBphWuQ&bvm=bv.59568121,d.ZGU Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge. Lennox, C., & Siegel, L. S. (1993). Visual and phonological spelling errors in subtypes of children with learning disabilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(4), 473–488. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/618461948?accountid=14771 Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 612–620.

REFERENCES

309

Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority students. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 53–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lesaux, N., & Russ, J. (2011). ESL children’s reading development. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development. Retrieved from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/ index.php?fa=items.show&topicId=295 Lesaux, N., Rupp, A., & Siegel, L. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99, 821–834. Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019. Leschied, A. W., Chiodo, D., Whitehead, P. C., & Hurley, D. (2005). The relationship between maternal depression and child outcomes in a child welfare sample: Implications for treatment and policy. Child & Family Social Work, 10, 281–291. doi: 10.1111/j.13652206.2005.00365.x Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 294–318. Liebig, T., & Widmaier, S. (2009). Children of immigrants in the labour markets of EU and OECD countries: An overview. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 97. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/220823724345 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Limbos, M. M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 136–151. Lin, M. D., Ramírez, G., Shade, W. J., & Geva, E. (2012). Bridging lexical knowledge and literacy. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Adolescent literacies in a multicultural context (pp. 102–117). New York, NY: Routledge. Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390–398. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. Lindsey, K., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish- speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 482–494. Lipson, J. G., & Miller, S. (1994). Changing roles of Afghan refugee women in the United States. Health Care for Women International, 15, 171–180. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com/docview/618519975?accountid=14771 Lloyd, S. (1992). The Jolly Phonics handbook. Essex, UK: Jolly Learning. López, F. A. (2012). Moderators of language acquisition models and reading achievement for English language learners: The role of emotional warmth and instructional support. Teachers College Record, 114(8), 1–30. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/1435853919?accountid=14771 Loppie, C., & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal peoples’ health. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Retrieved from www. nccah-ccnsa.ca/docs/social determinates/nccah-loppie-wien_report.pdf

310

REFERENCES

Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., & Risi, S. (2008). Autism diagnostic observation schedule manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Love, A., & Kruger, A. C. (2005). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in urban schools serving African American students. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 87–98. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.2.87-98 Lovett, W. M., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenz, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333–352. Low, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2005). A comparison of the cognitive processes underlying reading comprehension in native English and ESL speakers. Written Language and Literacy, 8, 207–231. Luk, G., DeSa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relation between onset age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 488–495. Luo, Y. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (2014). Concurrent and longitudinal cross-linguistic transfer of phonological awareness and morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilingual children. Written Language and Literacy, 17, 89–115. Lyytinen, H., Aro, M., & Holopainen, L. (2004). Dyslexia in Finland. In I. Smythe, J. Everatt, & R. Salter (Eds.), International book of dyslexia: A guide to practice and resources (pp. 92–95). Eastbourne, UK: John Wiley & Sons. MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2012). Writing instruction. In B. Wong & D. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 243–270). New York, NY: Elsevier. Macksoud, M. S. (1992). Assessing war trauma in children: A case study of Lebanese children. Journal of Refugee Studies, 5, 1–15. Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255–281. Manassis, K., Mendlowitz, S., Kreindler, D., Lumsden, C., Sharpe, J., Simon, M. D., … Adler-Nevo, G. (2009). Mood assessment via animated characters: A novel instrument to evaluate feelings in young children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 380–389. Marinova-Todd, S. H., Zhao, J., & Bernhardt, M. (2010). Phonological awareness skills in the two languages of Mandarin-English bilingual children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24(4–5), 387–400. Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 160–179. doi: 10.1080/10627190903422906 Martinussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 377–384. Marton, I., Wiener, J., Rogers, M., & Moore, C. (2012). Friendship characteristics of children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders (epub ahead of print). Marx, A., & Stanat, P. (2012). Reading comprehension of immigrant students in Germany: Research evidence on determinants and target points for intervention. Reading & Writing – An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1929–1945. Mash, E. J., & Hunsley, J. (2007). Assessment of child and family disturbance: A developmental systems approach. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., pp. 3–52). New York, NY: Guilford. Mbiti, S. J. (1990). African religions and philosophy (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.

REFERENCES

311

McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. S. -H. (2005). Predictors of beginning reading in Chinese and English: A 2-year longitudinal study of Chinese kindergartners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 117–144. McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York, NY: Guilford Press. McHolm, A. (2010). Helping children overcome selective mutism: A companion manual of forms and resources. Hamilton, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://angelamcholm.com/ Selective-Mutism-Resources.php McHolm, A., Cunningham, C., & Vanier, M. (2005). Helping your child with selective mutism: Practical steps to overcome a fear of speaking. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Retrieved from http://www.angelamcholm.com/shop/index.php?act=viewProd& productId=6 McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American Sociological Review, 58, 351–366. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first- and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 409–433. Meltzer, L., & Krishnan, K. (2007). Executive functioning and learning disabilities: Understandings and misunderstandings. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education: From theory to practice (pp. 77–105). New York, NY: Guilford. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306. Milloy, J. S. (1999). A national crime: The Canadian government and the residential school system, 1879–1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Miszei, K. (December 20, 2012). Robbing the Roma. [Editorial] Project Syndicate. Retrieved from http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-growing-isolation-of-europes-roma-by-kalman-mizsei Mitchell, T. L., & Maracle, D. T. (2005). Healing the generations: Post-traumatic stress and the health status of aboriginal populations in Canada. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 2, 14–23. Morris, A. (2011). Student standardised testing: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 65. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3rp9qbnr6-en Mota, N., Elias, B., Tefft, B., Medved, M., Munro, G., & Sareen, J. (2012). Correlates of suicidality: Investigation of a representative sample of Manitoba First Nations adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1353–1361. Mumtaz, S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). The effect of Urdu vocabulary size on the acquisition of single word reading in English. Educational Psychology, 22, 165–190. Naidoo, J. C. (2003). South Asian Canadian women: A contemporary portrait. Psychology and Developing Societies, 15(1), 51–67. doi: 10.1177/097133360301500104 Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 691–719. doi: 10.1007/s11145- 006-9045-7 National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2010). Standardized testing in lower secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Reports/ Standardised_Testing_In_LowerSecondary_Education.pdf National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/ report.pdf

312

REFERENCES

Ndlovu, K. E. D. (2010). Story-writing development from Grades 4 to 6: Do language status and reading profile matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Neisser, U. (1998). Introduction: Rising test scores and what they mean. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve; Long-term gains in IQ and related measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2003). Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Newton, C., Taylor, G., & Wilson, D. (1996). Circle of friends. An inclusive approach to meeting emotional and behavioral difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11, 41–48. Nikolopoulos, D., Goulandris, N., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2006). The cognitive bases of learning to read and spell in Greek: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 1–17. Norbury, C. F., & Sparks, A. (2013). Difference or disorder? Cultural issues in understanding neurodevelopmental disorders. Developmental Psychology, 49, 45–58. Normand, S., Schneider, B. H., Lee, M. D., Maisonneuve, M. F., Kuehn, S. M., & Robaey, P. (2011). How do children with ADHD (mis)manage their real-life dyadic friendships? A multi-method investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 293–305. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com/docview/618399108?accountid=14771 Oakland, T., & Harrison, P. (2008). Adaptive behavior assessment system-II: Clinical use and interpretations. New York, NY: Elsevier. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute. (n.d.). Site for language management in Canada: Legal framework. Retrieved from http://www.slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=native_ legal. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2003). Diversity, inclusion and equity: Insights from special needs provision. In P. McKenzie (Ed.), Education policy analysis (pp. 1–2). Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www. oecd.org/edu/school/18479464.pdf Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA. OECD briefing note. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/whereimmigrantstudentssucceed-acomparativereviewofperformanceandengagementinpisa2003.htm Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statistics and indicators. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/school/40299703. pdf Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf

REFERENCES

313

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010a). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn—Student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. 3). Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/17/48852630.pdf Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010b). A family affair: Intergenerational social mobility across OECD countries. Economic Policy Reforms Going for Growth (Part II, pp. 181–198). Paris, France: Author. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010c). OECD reviews of migrant education—Closing the gap for immigrant students: Policies, practice and performance. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/ school/44870913.pdf Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). Equity and quality in education. Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013, October). What do immigrant students tell us about the quality of education systems? PISA In Focus, 33. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/pisa-infocus-n33-%28eng%29-FINAL.pdf Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ Ortiz, S. O. (2004). Comprehensive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: A systematic approach for nondiscriminatory assessment. Author. Retrieved from http:// www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/ortiz.pdf Ortiz, S. O. (2008). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. (PowerPoint presentation.) Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/Best%20 Practices%20in%20.1 Osborne, L. A., & Reed, P. (2010). Stress and self-perceived parenting behaviors of parents of children with autism spectrum conditions. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 405–414. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.011 Panofsky, C., Pacheco, M., Smith, S., Santos, J., Fogelman, C., Harrington, M., & Kenney, E. (2005). Approaches to writing instruction for adolescent English language learners: A discussion of recent research and practice literature in relation to nationwide standards on writing. Providence, RI: Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/publications/approaches-writing-instruction-adolescentenglish-language-learners-discussion-recent-r Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brooks. Parrila, R., Kirby, J., & McQuarrie, L. (2004). Articulation rate, naming speed, verbal shortterm memory, and phonological awareness: Longitudinal predictors of early reading development? Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 3–26. Pasquarella, A., Gottardo, A., & Grant, A. (2012). Comparing factors related to reading comprehension in adolescents who speak English as a first (L1) or second (L2) language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 475–503. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011. 593066 Pathways to Education. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.pathwaystoeducation.ca/

314

REFERENCES

Pelham, W. E., Fabiano, G. A., & Massetti, G. M. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 449–476. Peña, J. B., Wyman, P. A., Brown, C. H., Matthieu, M. M., Olivares, T. E., Hartel, D., & Zayas, L. H. (2008). Immigration generation status and its association with suicide attempts, substance use, and depressive symptoms among latino adolescents in the USA. Prevention Science, 9, 299–310. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2007). Academic expectations, belief of ability, and involvement by parents as predictors of child achievement: A cross-cultural comparison. Educational Psychology, 27, 329–348. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/d ocview/621798278?accountid=14771 Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring SystemTM: Manual K-3. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/621971108?accountid=14771 Picot, G., & Hou, F. (2012). Immigrant status and secondary school performance as determinants of post-secondary participation: A comparison of Canada and Switzerland. OECD Education Working Paper Series No. 77. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Plunkett, S. W., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. Y. (2003). The relationship between parenting, acculturation, and adolescent academics in Mexican-origin immigrant families in Los Angeles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 222–239. doi: 10.1177/0739986303025002005 Plunkett, S. W., Behnke, A. O., Sands, T., & Choi, B. Y. (2009). Adolescents’ reports of parental engagement and academic achievement in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 257–268. Polanczyk, G., de Lima, M. S., Horta, B. L., Biederman, J., & Rohde, L. A. (2007). The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: A systematic review and metaregression analysis. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 942–948. Pong, S., & Landale, N. S. (2012). Academic achievement of legal immigrants’ children: The roles of parents’ pre- and postmigration characteristics in origin group differences. Child Development, 83, 1543–1559. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2012.01790.x Poulou, M., & Norwich, B. (2000). Teachers’ causal attributions, cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses to students with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 559–581. Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 247–256. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2003). Programme for international student assessment. Paris, France: OECD. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2009). Table II. 4.5. In Results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. 2). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2012). Untapped skills: Realising the potential of immigrant students. [Preliminary version]. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/217393 Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Luo, Y. (2011). Awareness and word reading in ELLs: Evidence from Spanish- and Chinese-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 601–618.

REFERENCES

315

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Report for the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/ dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Ravid, D. (2001). Learning to spell in Hebrew: Phonological and morphological factors. Reading and Writing, 14, 459–485. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavioral assessment for children (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford. Rhodes, W. C. (1974). Principles and practices of consultation. Professional Psychology, 5(3), 287–292. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/615977994?accountid=1 4771 Ridley, C. R., Li, L. C., & Hill, C. L. (1998). Multicultural assessment: Reexamination, reconceptualization, and practical application. The Counseling Psychologist, 26(6), 827– 910. doi: 10.1177/0011000098266001 Rivera, L. M. (2008). Acculturation and multicultural assessment: Issues, trends, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 622058276?accountid=14771 Roberts, G. E. (2005). Roberts apperception test for children: 2. North Tonawanda, NY: MultiHealth Systems. Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal, 26, 24–25. Rogers, M., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Supportive and controlling parental involvement as predictors of children’s academic achievement: Relations to children’s ADHD symptoms and parenting stress. School Mental Health, 2, 89–102. Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2005). Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos, 33(3), 299–334. doi: 10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.299 Roid, G. H., Miller, L. J., Pomplun, M., & Koch, C. (2013). Leiter international performance scale (3rd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572–594. Roma Education Fund. (2012). Annual report 2012. Author. Retrieved from http://www. romaeducationfund.hu/sites/default/files/publications/ref_annual_report_2012.pdf Rousseau, C., & Drapeau, A. (2000). Scholastic achievement of adolescent refugees from Cambodia and Central America. Adolescence, 35, 243–258. Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com/docview/619450081?accountid=14771 Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. Journal of the National Association of Bilingual Education, 8, 15–34. Ryder, A. G., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Yao, S., Yi, J., Heine, S. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). The cultural shaping of depression: Somatic symptoms in China, psychological symptoms in North America? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 300–313. Rydland, V., Aukrust, V. G., & Fulland, H. (2012). How word decoding, vocabulary and prior topic knowledge predict reading comprehension. A study of language-minority students in Norwegian fifth grade classrooms. Reading and Writing, 25, 465–482.

316

REFERENCES

Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2008). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English-Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 481–504. Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., & Bartko, W. T. (1997). Environmental perspectives on adaptation during childhood and adolescence. In S. S. Luthar & J. Burack (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 507–526). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166–184). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children. San Diego, CA: Author. Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler. Scanlon, D. (2013). Specific learning disability and its newest definition: Which is comprehensive? And which is insufficient? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 26–33. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Filion, B. (1981). Writing for results: A sourcebook of consequential composing activities. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press. Schneider, B. (1993). Cultural imprints on children’s social competence. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Children’s social competence in context: The contributions of family, school and culture (pp. 119–156). Oxford: Pergamon. Schneider, B. H., Wiener, J., & Murphy, K. (1994). Children’s friendships: The giant step beyond peer acceptance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 323– 340. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/618609140?accountid= 14771 Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Immigrants’ educational disadvantage: An examination across ten countries and three surveys. Journal of Popular Economics, 20, 527–545. Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R. D., Hulstijn, J., & de Glopper, K. (2011). Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary school students. Language Learning, 61(1), 31–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00590.x Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 177–186. Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29, 400–418. Schwartz, M., Leikin, M., & Share, D. L. (2005). Bi-literate bilingualism versus monoliterate bilingualism: A longitudinal study of reading acquisition in Hebrew (L2) among Russian-speaking (L1) children. Written Language and Literacy, 8, 179–207. Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the Northern Territory. (2012). Gone too soon: A report into youth suicide in the Northern Territory. Darwin, NT: Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Retrieved from http://www.nt.gov.au/lant/parliamentary-business/committees/ctc/youth-suicides/Final_Report_on_Youth_Suicides. pdf Seliger, H., Krashen, S., & Ladefoged, P. (1975). Maturational constraints in the acquisition of second languages. Language Sciences, 38, 20–22. Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (Rev. ed., pp. 197–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.

REFERENCES

317

Shany, M., Wiener, J., & Feingold, L. (2011). Knowledge about and preoccupation with reading disabilities: A delicate balance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 80–93. Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615. Sheridan, S. M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical bases of conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119–133. Sheridan, S. M. (2000). Considerations of multiculturalism and diversity in behavioral consultation with parents and teachers. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 344–353. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619453759?accountid=14771 Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc view/617707445?accountid=14771 Siegler, R. S. (1992). The other Alfred Binet. Developmental Psychology, 28, 179–190. Simeone, T. (2011). Primer on aboriginal issues. Ottawa, Canada: Library of Parliament. Retrieved from http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/events/attachment/primer-revised/ Simon, G. E., VonKorff, M., Piccinelli, M., Fullerton, C., & Ormel, J. (1999). An international study of the relation between somatic symptoms and depression. The New England Journal of Medicine, 341(18), 1329–1335. Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivation suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12, 219– 252. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619531508?accountid=14771 Sirin, S. R., Ryce, P., & Mir, M. (2009). How teachers’ values affect their evaluation of children of immigrants: Findings from Islamic and public schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 463–473. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.003 Slodnjak, V., Kos, A., & Yule, W. (2002). Depression and parasuicide in refugee and Slovenian adolescents. Crisis, 23(3), 127–132. Smith, P., Perrin, S., Dyregrov, A., & Yule, W. (2003). Principal components analysis of the impact of event scale with children in war. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 315–322. Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Southwest Education Development Laboratory (SEDL). (1995). Constructing knowledge in the classroom. Classroom Compass, 1(3), 1–3. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/ pubs/classroom-compass/cc_v1n3.pdf Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi: 10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00562.x Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term cross linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd ed.): Survey forms manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service (AGS). Spearman, C. (1904). ‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1412107 Spira, E. G., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity on social and academic development: A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 755–773. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stanat, P., Becker, M., Baumert, J., Lüdtke, O., & Eckhardt, A. G. (2012). Improving second language skills of immigrant students: A field trial study evaluating the effects of

318

REFERENCES

a summer learning program. Learning and Instruction, 22, 159–170. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.002 Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed—A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD. Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. Stanovich, K. (1991). Conceptual and empirical problems with discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(4), 269–280. Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com/docview/618101128?accountid=14771 Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression based test of the phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247. Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogenous classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 219–236. Statistics Canada. (2003). 2001 Census: Analysis series. The changing profile of Canada’s labour force (Cat. No. 96F0030XIE2001009). Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/paid/ pdf/96F0030XIE2001009.pdf Statistics Canada. (2011). National household survey: The educational attainment of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/assa/99-012-x/99-012-x2011003_3-eng.cfm) Sterlin, C., Legendre, G., & Kada, A. (2000). Psychiatric and interprofessional intercultural practice: The case of an Algerian adolescent with antisocial behavior. In E. Geva, A. Barsky, & F. Westernoff (Eds.), Interprofessional practice with diverse populations: Cases in point (pp. 147–162). Westport, CT: Auburn House. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3(4), 292–316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292 Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325–338. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.5.325 Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189–202. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/6210 25181?accountid=14771 Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. Stratman, K., & Hodson, B. W. (2005). Variables that influence decoding and spelling in beginning readers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 165–190. Strohmeier, D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 248–258. Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587–605.

REFERENCES

319

Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 3–22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011884841?accountid=14771 Su, C., & Hynie, M. (2011). Effects of life stress, social support, and cultural norms on parenting styles among mainland Chinese, European Canadian, and Chinese Canadian immigrant mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(6), 944–962. doi: 10.1177/0022022110381124 Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 440–448. Swanson, H. L. (2000). Issues facing the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 37–50. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619524548 ?accountid=14771 Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002321 Swearer, S., Grills, A. E., Haye, K. M., & Tam Cary, P. (2004). Internalizing problems in students involved in bullying and victimization: Implications for intervention. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 63–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Taki, M., Slee, P., Sim, H., Hymel, S., & Pepler, D. (2006, July). An international study of bullying in five Pacific Rim countries. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Melbourne Australia. Tanner, A. (2005). The Roma of Eastern Europe: Still searching for inclusion. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/ feature/display.cfm?ID=308 Tannock, R. (2013). Rethinking ADHD and LD in DSM-5: Proposed changes in diagnostic criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 5–25. Tannock, R., Hum, M., Masellis, M., Humphries, T., & Schachar, R. (2002). Teacher telephone interview for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and related disorders. DSM-IV version. Retrieved from http://www.sickkids.ca/pdfs/research/tannock/6013-tti-ivmanual.pdf Tardif, C., & Geva, E. (2006). The link between acculturation disparity and conflict among Chinese Canadian immigrant mother-adolescent dyads. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 37, 191–211. doi: 10.1177/0022022105284496 Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). A longitudinal daily diary study of family assistance and academic achievement among adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 560–571. Theule, J., Wiener, J., Jenkins, J., & Tannock, R. (2013). Parenting stress in families of children with ADHD: A meta-analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(1), 3–17. doi: 10.1177/1063426610387433 Theule, J., Wiener, J., Rogers, M., & Marton, I. (2011). Predicting parenting stress in families of children with ADHD: Parent and contextual factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 640–647. doi: 10.1007/s10826-010-9439-7 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Thoreau, C., & Liebig, T. (2012). Settling in: OECD indicators of immigrant integration. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/Secretariat_ Press_3Dec2012_Final%20REV.pdfdoi: 10.1177/0829573511423212

320

REFERENCES

Timmermanis, V., & Wiener, J. (2011). Social correlates of bullying in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 301–318. doi: 10.1177/0829573511423212 Timmermanis, V., & Wiener, J. (2012, July). Who? What? Why? An exploration of bullying among adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Poster presented at the International School Psychology Association Conference, Montreal, Quebec. Toplak, M. E., Sorge, G. B., Flora, D. B., Chen, W., Banaschewski, T., Buitelaar, J., … Faraone, S. V. (2012). The hierarchical factor model of ADHD: Invariant across age and national groupings? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 292–303. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 131–143. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12001 Toppelberg, C. O., Tabors, P., Coggins, A., Lum, K., & Burger, C. (2005). Differential diagnosis of selective mutism in bilingual children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 592–595. Torppa, M., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A. M., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Leskinen, E., & Lyytinen, H. (2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 3–32. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: Guilford. Totten, M., Quigley, P., & Morgan, M. (2004). CPHA safe school survey for students in grades 8 -12. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Public Health Association and Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved from www.cpha.ca Turcios-Cotto, V. Y., & Milan, S. (2013). Racial/ethnic differences in the educational expectations of adolescents: Does pursuing higher education mean something different to Latino students compared to white and black students? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1399–1412. Turner, S. M., DeMers, S. T., Roberts Fox, H., & Reed, G. T. (2001). APA’s guidelines for test user qualifications: An executive summary. American Psychologist, 56(12), 1099–1113. Tzuriel, D., & Kaufman, R. (1999). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 359–380. Uhry, J. K. (2002). Kindergarten phonological awareness and rapid serial naming as predictors of Grade 2 reading and spelling. In E. Witruk, A. D. Friederici, & T. Lachmann (Eds.), Basic mechanisms of language and language disorders. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Retrieved from http://www.humanium.org/en/childrens-rights-history/referenceson-child-rights/1966-international-covenant/civil-political-rights/ United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: Author. United Nations. (2008). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations Enable Website. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/default. asp?id=150

REFERENCES

321

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2003). Ensuring the rights of indigenous children. Innocenti Digest No. 11. New York, NY: Innocenti Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/digest11e.pdf United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2007a). Breaking the cycle of exclusion: Roma children in South East Europe. Serbia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/ ceecis/070305-Subregional_Study_Roma_Children.pdf United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2007b). Promoting the rights of children with disabilities. Innocenti Digest No. 13. New York, NY: Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/children_disability_rights.pdf United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2012). The situation of Roma in 11 EU member states: Survey results at a glance. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/2099-FRA-2012-Roma-at-aglance_EN.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1960). Convention against discrimination in education. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/ en/ ev.php-URL_ID=12949&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC& URL_ SECTION=201.htm United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1997). International standard classification of education (ISCED). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://www.uis. unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-standard-classification-of-education.aspx United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc .unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf van Bergen, D. D., Smit, J. H., van Balkom, A. J., van Ameijden, E., & Saharso, S. (2008). Suicidal ideation in ethnic minority and majority adolescents in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Crisis, 29, 202–208. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477–491. Vazquez-Nuttall, E., Li, C., Dynda, A. M., Ortiz, S. O., Armengol, C. G., Walton, J. W., & Phoenix, K. (2007). Cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children. In G. Esquivel, E. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Multicultural handbook of school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 265–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing, 25, 1805–1818. Wade-Woolley, L., & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 295–311. Wade-Woolley, L., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). The spelling performance of ESL and native speakers of English as a function of reading skills. Reading and Writing, 9, 387–406. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). The comprehensive test of phonological processing (2nd ed). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

322

REFERENCES

Walsh, S. D., Edelstein, A., & Vota, D. (2012). Suicidal ideation and alcohol use among Ethiopian adolescents in Israel: The relationship with ethnic identity and parental support. European Psychologist, 17, 131–142. Wang, M. C., & Baker, E. T. (1985). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 503–521. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/617378383?accountid=14771 Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003a). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325–348. Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003b). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 1–25. Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88. doi: 10.1016/j. cognition.2004.10.001 Waschbusch, D. A., Cunningham, C. E., Pelham, W. E., Rimas, H. L., Greiner, A. R., Gnagy, E. M., … Hoffman, M. T. (2011). A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate parent preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 546–561. Webley, K. (2010, Oct. 13). Hounded in Europe, Roma in the U.S. keep a low profile. Time. Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson. Weerasekera, P. (1996). Multiperspective case formulation: A step towards treatment integration. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619360197 ?accountid=14771 Westernoff, F. (1991). The assessment of communication disorders in second language learners. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 15, 73–79. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Whittaker, S., Hardy, G., Lewis, K., & Buchan, L. (2005). An exploration of psychological well-being with young Somali refugee and asylum-seeker women. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10, 177–196. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc view/620728207?accountid=14771 Wiener, J. (1986). Alternatives in the assessment of the learning disabled adolescent: A learning strategies approach. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 97–107. Wiener, J. (1987). Factors affecting educators’ comprehension of psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 116–126. Wiener, J., & Costaris, L. (2012). Teaching psychological report writing: Content and process. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29, 119–135. Wiener, J., & Harris, P. J. (1997). Evaluation of an individualized, context-based social skills training program for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 40–53. Wiener, J., Harris, P. J., & Shirer, C. (1990). Achievement and social behavioural correlates of peer status in children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 114–127.

REFERENCES

323

Wiener, J., & Mak, M. (2009). Peer victimization in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 116–131. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ pits.20358 Wiener, J., & Schneider, B. H. (2002). A multisource exploration of the friendship patterns of children with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 127–141. Wiener, J., & Sunohara, G. (1998). Parents’ perceptions of the quality of friendship of their children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 242–257. Wiener, L. (2011). A self-fulfilling prophecy: Aboriginal experiences of child health and welfare policy north of Lake Huron, 1900–1939. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Kings College London, UK. Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Duncan, L., Smith, S. D., Keenan, J. M., Wadsworth, S., … Olson, R. K. (2010). Understanding the complex etiologies of developmental disorders: Behavioral and molecular genetic approaches. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 533–544. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Are Americans becoming more or less alike? Trends in race, class, and ability differences in intelligence. American Psychologist, 52, 1226. Willms, J. D. (2003). Ten hypotheses about socioeconomic gradients and community differences in children’s developmental outcomes. Final Report, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy. Ottawa, Canada: Human Resources Development Canada. Wise, N., & Chen, X. (2010). At-risk readers in French immersion: Early identification and early intervention. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 128–149. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239. Wolf, T. H. (1969). The emergence of Binet’s conception and measurement of intelligence: A case history of the creative process. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 5(2), 113–134. Wolraich, M. L., Lambert, E. W., Baumgaertel, A., Garcia-Tornel, S., Feurer, I. D., Bickman, L., & Doffing, M. A. (2003). Teachers’ screening for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Comparing multinational samples on teacher ratings of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 445–455. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001/2007). Woodcock Johnson tests of achievement (3rd ed). Itasca, IL: Riverside. Wynaden, D., Chapman, R., Orb, A., McGowan, S., Zeeman, Z., & Yeak, S. (2005). Factors that influence Asian communities’ access to mental health care. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 14, 88–95. Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2012). Toward modeling reading development in young English as second language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 163–187. Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., Geva, E., & Rogers, M. (2008). The impact of acculturation on the perception of academic achievement by immigrant mothers and their children. School Psychology International, 29, 39–70. Yap, R. L., & van der Leij, A. (1993). Word processing in dyslexics: An automatic decoding deficit. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 261–279. Yeung, A., & Kam, R. (2008). Ethical and cultural considerations in delivering psychiatric diagnosis: Reconciling the gap using MDD diagnosis delivery in less-acculturated Chinese patients. Transcultural Psychiatry, 45, 531–552.

324

REFERENCES

Yokota-Adachi, H., & Geva, E. (1999). Thinking of school and learning in a multicultural context: A comparison of Canadian teachers and Japanese parents. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20, 532–547. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com/docview/85534735?accountid=14771 Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool executive function in childhood and adolescence: Development and plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4), 354–360. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1269433419?accountid=14771 Zwirs, B. W., Burger, H., Buitelaar, J. K., & Schulpen, T. W. (2006). Ethnic differences in parental detection of externalizing disorders. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(7), 418–426.

NOTE 1. This is not a complete link, but can be used in a search engine such as Google or Bing. It is the first item that appears.

Index

Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” denote figures and tables, respectively. aboriginal peoples, 22–24 definition, 4t academic achievement, 135–175 adaptive academic skills, 137–138 case studies, 253–254, 260–261, 267–268, 273–274, 280 and communication, 225 and cultural differences, 17, 65–66 culture bias/knowledge, 136–137 defining and diagnosing LDs, 153–158 and demographic trends, 13–18, 15t dos and don’ts, 159 dynamic assessment, 148–149, 174–175t executive function, 142–144, 160–173t familiarity with testing formats, 137 immigration policies and immigrant populations in OECD countries, 138 interpretation of data, 149–153 interviews, 147 in L1 and L2, 273–274 language proficiency, 137 mathematics, 140–142 observational techniques, 145–147 policies to enhance, 18–21 reading and writing, 139–140 school and classroom environment, 138–139 and special needs education, 31 standardized tests, 144–145 time of assessment in L2, 136 academic intervention, 243–244

academic language, 37–38, 40 academic tests, 287 acceptance, peer, 186 access to treatment, 245 acculturation, 67–69, 221–227, 241, 279 definition, 67 caregiver and child, 73–74 Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, 178 “acting white,” 66 acute stress disorder, 213 adaptive academic skills, 137–138, 146 adaptive behavior and intelligence, 120–121 Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition, 121 ADHD Rating Scale, 196 adjustment disorders, 213 advocacy, 229–230 with school system, 262–263, 269 age of arrival and academic achievement, 17 and intelligence assessment, 122 and L2 language development, 44 aggression, 198, 200 questions for parents, 202–205t Aimsweb, 149, 287 alphabetic orthographies, 41 ambiguity, cultural differences in tolerance for, 66 analytical intelligence, 117

326

INDEX

anxiety, 206–207, 241 cultural issues in, 251, 254 questions to assess, 208–210t Asia, aboriginal peoples in, 22–23 assimilation, 68 Associated Features Supporting Diagnosis, 157 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 186, 194–198 case study, 280, 281, 282 inattention and hyperactivity/ impulsivity of, 195 prevalence of, 195 symptoms, 274 attitudes of psychologists, 247 of teachers, 139, 147, 231–232 attributions of parents, 74–75 auditory discrimination, tests and tasks for, 89 Australia, indigenous people of, 22 Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Second Edition (ADOS), 215 autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), diagnosis of, 214–215 Autism Spectrum Quotient, 215 Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, 179

externalizing behaviors, 198–206, 202–205t inattentive and hyperactive–impulsive behaviors, 194–198 internalizing behaviors, 206–212, 208–210t language demands of standardized psychological tests, 180–181 peer relations and context, 186–194, 188t, 190–193t Behavior Assessment System for Children—Second Edition (BASC-2), 178 Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), 142 biculturalism, 68–69 bilingual, definition, 5t bilingualism and academic achievement, 18–20, 21 and L1–L2 transfer, 39 bilingual program, definition, 8t British Columbia (BC) academic achievement of ELLs in, 17 educational system in, 16 broad-band intelligence tests, in standard form, 123 bullying, 186, 187 interview, 189, 190–193t

background knowledge and academic achievement, 140 and reading comprehension, 53 and writing skills, 55 Barrier Game (game), 93 basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), 37–39, 75, 93, 97, 98, 143, 180, 199, 273 definition, 5t Beck Youth Inventories, 179 behavioral functioning, 177–216 analysis of instruments used to assess, 178–182 case studies, 268, 281–282 and cultural differences, 181–182 developmental systems approach, 182–186 dos and don’ts, 216

California Bullying Victimization Scale, 189 Canada, bilingualism in, 18 Canadian Aboriginals, 23, 24, 68 academic achievement of, 151 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 29 caregiver, cultural norms and values of, 73–74 case consultation, 230, 232–233 child, cultural norms and values of, 73–74 Child Behavior Checklist, 178 Children’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (CDI 2), 178 citizenship, and immigration, 16 Civil Rights Act, 29 classification, in LD diagnosis, 153, 156

INDEX

classroom, homogeneity–diversity of ethnic and linguistic groups in, 43 Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), 146 classroom environment, and academic achievement, 138–139 clinical decision making, 238–243, 240t cognate words, 40 cognitive ability, validity of measures of, 117–119 cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), 37–39, 46, 75, 97, 98, 120, 148, 150, 273 definition, 5t cognitive processes, in L1–L2 transfer, 41 collaboration, school and community, 290 collaborative consultation, 232 collectivism, and cultural differences, 63–64 communication, 217–235 adapting psychological reports, 227–229, 228t advocacy, 229–230 consultation, 230–233 dos and don’ts, 234–235 with family and school, 262–263 feedback interviews, 218–227 community consultation and collaboration, 290 social support, 71 comprehension, reading. See reading comprehension Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), 267, 273, 287 CTOPP-2, 94 conceptual knowledge, and L1–L2 transfer, 40 conduct disorder, 206 confidentiality, 70, 226 conjoint behavioral consultation approach (CBC), 233 case study, 255 Conners Rating Scales, 196, 281 Third Edition, 178, 274 considerate text, 227 constructivist classrooms, 138 consultation, 230–233

327

case study, 290 contexts in DSA, 185–186 family. See family in L2 language ad literacy development, 42–45 peer, 186–194, 188t, 190–193t Convention Against Discrimination in Education (United Nations), 29 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (United Nations), 29 corporal punishment, 226 counseling communication skills, 70 courtesy stigma, 63 creative intelligence, 117 cross-language transfer, 39–42 cross-linguistic, definition, 6t cultural differences, 241 and academic achievement, 17 acculturation, 67–69 and behavioral, social, and emotional functioning, 181–182 and consultation, 233 definition, 4t family structure and gender roles, 66–67 high/low context, 64–65 individualism/collectivism, 63–64 influence of, 62–69 and intelligence assessment, 123 language and immigration history, 72 mind–body dualism, 64 role in assessment of math skills, 140–141 short-/long-term orientation, 65 tolerance for ambiguity and diversity, 66 values for academic achievement, 65–66 cultural facilitator, 226 cultural interpreters, 75–76, 84t culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD), definition, 4t culture bias, and academic achievement, 136–137 definition, 62 influence on cognitive development, 126–127 -related diagnostic issues, 158 curriculum differences, mathematics, 142

328

INDEX

data, assessment interpretation of, 238–243, 240t organization, 238, 239t decision making, 98, 279 in intelligence tests, 125–129 deculturation, 68 Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), 142 demography factors, in L2 language ad literacy development, 44 trends, and academic achievement, 13–18, 15t depression, 206–207, 211, 241 questions to assess, 208–210t Derivational Suffix Test, 89 developmental systems approach (DSA), 177, 182–186, 238 contexts, 185–186 developing trust, 184–185 thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, 185 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), 97, 135, 153, 156, 157–158, 194, 195, 201, 206, 207, 211, 212, 213, 215, 238 definition of LDs, 156 definition of SLD, 157 diagnosis of intellectual disability using, 127–129 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), 281 diagnostic formulation, 238–243 data organization, 238 interpretation of assessment data, 238–243, 240t disinhibited social engagement disorder, 212–213 disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, 211 diversity, cultural differences in tolerance for, 66 Dolch Word List, 287 Draw a Person Test, 179 due process, special needs education, 29–30 dynamic assessment

of academic achievement, 148–149, 174–175t case studies, 261, 287–288 of intelligence tests, 124 of OLP, 94–95 dysfluent reading, 50, 52 dysgraphia, 153, 155 ecological assessment of intelligence tests, 125 education of aboriginal peoples, 24 attainment, 15t and jobs, 12 of Roma people, 25 systems, 16 elementary school children, reading comprehension of, 52–53 emotional functioning, 177–216 analysis of instruments used to assess, 178–182 case studies, 268, 274–275, 281–282, 288 and cultural differences, 181–182 developmental systems approach, 182–186 dos and don’ts, 216 language demands of standardized psychological tests, 180–181 peer relations and context, 186–194, 188t, 190–193t employment, of Roma people, 25 Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles, and Guidelines for Practice, 71 English as a first language (EL1) children, reading comprehension of, 53 definition, 5t English as a second language (ESL), definition, 5t English language, standardized tests and research-based tasks for, 89, 90–91t English-language learners (ELLs), 37, 38 academic achievement of, 17 definition, 5t intellectual disability in, 259–263 program teacher interview, 266 reading comprehension of, 52, 53

INDEX

research-based tasks for, 89 story writing of, 55–56 text-reading fluency of, 51 vocabulary development of, 46–47 word-level reading skills of, 47–48 environment. See classroom environment; school environment equity, special needs education, 29–30 Europe, minorities in. See Roma European Commission, 26 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber of, 25 European Union (EU), 25 Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, 26 executive function (EF), 142–144, 160–173t case study, 281 explanation, in LD diagnosis, 153 Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (EVT-2), 267, 273 externalizing behaviors, 198–206, 202–205t, 226 familiarity with academic achievement testing formats, 137 family attitudes, 221–227 attributions, 74–75 caregiver and child cultural norms and values, and acculturation, 73–74 communication with, 262–263 dos and don’ts, 77 factors, in L2 language ad literacy development, 42–45 interviews with, 61 language and immigration history, 72 language and literacy level of, 219–220, 221f parenting stress, 75 perspective on child’s development, 71–76 risk factors, 241–242 role in L2 language development, 43 social supports, 71–72, 78–83t structure, cultural differences in, 66–67 support, and academic achievement, 151 family therapy, 245

329

feedback interviews, 218–227 acculturation and family attitudes, 221–227 case study, 289–290 embellished normal curve for use in, 222f inclusion of children and adolescents, 218–219 language/literacy level of children and families, 219–220, 221f feelings, in DSA, 185 first language (L1) and academic achievement, 17, 18, 20, 273–274 advantages of assessing children, 87–88 challenges of assessing children, 88 cognitive tests in, 272–273 definition, 5t L1–L2 transfer, 39 language and literacy skills, assessment of, 95–96 First Nations people, 22, 23 fluency. See text-reading fluency; word-reading fluency foreign accent, 17 friendship, 186 interview, 187, 188t gender and social support, 71 roles, cultural differences in, 66–67 generalized anxiety disorder, 211 genetic disorder, 239–240 graduated prompting, 94–95 grammatical complexity, 142 group identity, 62 health of aboriginal peoples, 24 heritage language, definition, 5t heritage language program, definition, 8t high-context cultures, 64–65 home factors, in L2 language and literacy development, 42–45 home language and academic achievement, 18, 19–20 definition, 5t House-Tree-Person, 179

330

INDEX

Hungary, Roma people in, 25, 26 hyperactive–impulsive behaviors, 194–198 immersion programs definition, 8t and bilingualism, 20 immigrant-receiving country age of arrival in. See age of arrival definition, 4t immigrants and academic achievement, 13–21, 15t definition, 4t populations in OECD countries, 138 immigration history, of family, 72 policies, 14, 15, 16, 138 Impact of Event Scale for Children, 214 inattentive behaviors, 194–198 inclusion definition, 8t special needs education, 30–31 Indian Act, 23 indigenous peoples. See aboriginal peoples individual identity, 62 individualism, and cultural differences, 63–64 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 29 integration, 68–69 intellectual disability diagnosis using DSM-5 criteria, 127–129 in ELLs, 259–263 intelligence, 115–131 and academic achievement, 154 adaptive behavior and intelligence, 120–121 administering broad-band standardized tests in standard form, 123 administering narrow-band single construct “nonverbal” tests, 123 assessment using standardized IQ test, 121 crystallized vs. fluid, 119–122 defining and conceptualizing in multicultural context, 116–117 developing rapport, 119

diagnosis of intellectual disability using DSM-5 criteria, 127–129 discrepancy definition of LD, 120 dos and don’ts, 131 dynamic assessment, 124 ecological assessment, 125 flexible clinical formulation, 126–127 modifying administration of standardized tests, 123–124 questions to consider when assessing, 132–133t reporting of results, 129 validity of measures of cognitive ability, 117–119 interdependence hypothesis for bilingualism, 19 and L1–L2 transfer, 40–41 intermittent explosive disorder, 206 internalizing behaviors, 206–212, 208–210t, 226 International Academy for Research, 153 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), 27 interpreters, 75–76, 84t, 88, 201, 207 intervention, linking assessment and, 243–245 interviews academic achievement, 147 for behavioral, social, and emotional functioning, 179, 195, 197, 200 case study, 280 bullying, 189, 190–193t friendship, 187, 188t Inuit, 22, 23 I Spy With My Little Eye (game), 92–93 jobs, and education, 12 Jolly Phonics, 267 Ka Hikitia, 24 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), 123, 126, 266, 272, 287 Kaufman Functional Academic Skills Test (K-FAST), 144 Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement—Second Edition, 144

INDEX

Kiddie-Sads-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL), 179 Kinetic Family Drawing, 179, 206 knowledge and academic achievement, 136–137 background. See background knowledge of psychologists, 245–246 knowledge workers, 12–13 language of aboriginal peoples, 24 comprehension, 36 of family, 72 influence on cognitive development, 126–127 level of children and families, 219–220, 221f proficiency, 137 samples, tests and tasks for, 92–94, 105–112t skills of L2 learners, 33–60 language disorder, 96, 97 case study, 265–270 language of instruction and academic achievement, 16–17, 18, 19–20 definition, 5t learning disabilities (LDs), 33, 74 case study, 271, 275 definition, 6t, 153–158 diagnosing, 153–158 discrepancy definition of, 120, 154, 155 vs. intellectual disability, 117, 118 Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD), 124 learning strategies interview, 143, 147, 160–173t legitimacy establishing, of psychologists, 70 Leiter International Performance Scale, Third Edition (Leiter-3), 123 Letter Bingo (game), 267 lexical complexity, 141 linguistic interpreters, 75–76, 84t listening comprehension, definition, 5t literacy

331

level of children and families, 219–220, 221f skills, role of OLP in assessment of, 139–140 skills of L2 learners, 33–60 long-term orientation, cultures with, 65 low-context cultures, 64–65 macrosystems, 238 major depressive disorder, 211–212 Maoris, 22, 23, 24 marginalization, 68 mathematics achievement in, 14, 137 curriculum differences, 142 role of OLP and cultural differences in assessment of, 140–141 Matthew Effects, 46 meaning, role in reading fluency, 50 Metis, 22 microsystems, 238 mild intellectual disability (MID), 128 case study, 260, 262–263 mind–body dualism, and cultural differences, 64 Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy program, 283 minority definition, 4t nonimmigrant groups, 21–27 model minority stereotype, 65–66 monolingual, definition, 5t mood disorders, 206 morpheme, definition, 6t morphology, definition, 6t morphosyntax, 94, 97 definition, 6t standardized tests and research-based tasks for, 91t multilingual, definition, 6t multiple intelligences, 116, 117 narrow-band single construct nonverbal tests, for intelligence, 123 negative transfer, 39–40, 41–42, 87–88, 94, 152 role in spelling skills, 54

332

INDEX

neurological disorder, 239–240 New Zealand, indigenous people of, 22, 23, 24 noncompliance, 198, 199, 200, 201, 207 questions for parents, 202–205t nonimmigrant vulnerable minority groups, 21–27 aboriginal peoples, 21–24 Roma, 24–26 implications, 26–27 nonverbal tests, narrow-band single construct, 123 nonword decoding, definition, 7t norms, cultural, 73–74 observational techniques, for academic achievement, 145–147 Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Psychology Clinic, 230, 249 open-ended questions, 92, 137, 143 Open Society Institute, 26 oppositional defiant disorder, 205 Oral Language Checklist, 93, 105–112t oral language proficiency (OLP), 85–114, 136, 148, 238, 243 advantages of assessing children in L1, 87–88 background knowledge, 140 case studies, 267, 268, 273, 286–287 challenges of assessing children in L1, 88 definition, 6t development in L2 learners, 35, 37, 46–47, 51 dos and don’ts, 99 interpreting L2 assessment data, 86–87, 113–114t L1 language and literacy skills, assessment of, 95–96 language samples, 92–94, 105–112t and reading comprehension, 53 response to intervention/dynamic assessment, 94–95 role in assessment of literacy skills, 139–140 role in assessment of math skills, 140–141 standardized tests and research-based tasks, 89–92, 90–91t, 100–101t, 102–104t

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2, 9t, 12–17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 63, 135, 145, 178 countries, immigration policies and immigrant populations in, 138 orthographic depth, definition, 7t orthography, definition, 7t overidentification, 33, 238 Pacific-Rim Bullying Measure, 189 parental education, role in L2 language development, 43, 44 parenting stress, 75, 226 Parent Interview for Child Symptoms (P.I.C.S.-6), 197–198 parents attributions of, 74–75 consent of, 61 involvement in children’s education, 244 Pathways to Education program, 21, 125 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), 254, 286 Fourth Edition (PPVT-4), 87, 267, 273 peer relations and context, 186–194, 188t, 190–193t persistent depressive disorder, 211–212, 289 PHAST program, 275, 288 phoneme, definition, 6t phonemic awareness of L2 learners, 36 programs, 243 phonological awareness definition, 7t rhyming games, 93 and spelling skills, 54 and word-level reading skills, 49 phonological memory, definition, 7t phonological processing, 96–97, 155 graphic representation of, 221f for word reading, 41 phonology, standardized tests and research-based tasks for, 90t policies to enhance academic achievement, 18–21 immigration, 14, 15, 16, 138 special needs education, 27, 28t, 30

INDEX

popularity, peer, 186 portfolios, school, 145–146 positive transfer, 39–40 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 206, 213–214 case study, 268 practical intelligence, 117 pragmatics definition, 6t standardized tests and research-based tasks for, 91t pressing the limits method, 94–95 pretend-play, 92 program consultation, 230 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 9t, 12, 14–15, 17, 20–21, 25 Pseudoword Auditory Discrimination Task, 89, 100–101t, 287 pseudoword decoding definition, 7t of ELLs, 47 psychological reports, 223–224t, 227–229, 228t case study, 291 psychological well-being, 18–21 psychosocial intervention, 244–245 rapid automatized naming (RAN), 41 definition, 7t and spelling skills, 54 rapport case study, 252 in intelligence assessment, 119 rating scales for behavioral, social, and emotional functioning, 178–179, 196 Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 123, 124 reactive attachment disorder, 212 reading academic achievement issues regarding, 139–140, 155–156 achievement in, 14, 137 reading comprehension definition, 7t in L2 learners, 34f, 35–36, 51–53 strategies, definition, 7t

333

reading fluency definition, 8t text. See text-reading fluency word. See word-reading fluency reading skills in L1, 96 refugees, definition, 4t rejection, 68 peer, 186 report cards, 95–96, 145–146 reports psychological. See psychological reports results, of intelligence assessments, 129 research-based tasks, for OLP, 89–92, 90–91t, 100–101t reserves, 23 response to intervention (RTI) for academic achievement, 149, 154, 156 case studies, 253–254, 267–268, 287–288 OLP, 94–95 Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale—Youth and Parent Report (RCADS) Roberts Apperception Test, 179 Roma, 24–26 Roma Education Fund, 26 Romani, 24, 25 Rorschach Comprehensive System, 179 The Rorschach Inkblot Test, 179 safe countries principle, 25 Safe Schools Questionnaire, 189 Safe Schools Survey, 189 Sami, 22 satellite children, 74 satellite students, 271 school cafeteria, societal language used by L2 learners in, 38 communication with, 262–263, 272 consultation and collaboration, 290 segregation and education, 14 school environment, 242 and academic achievement, 138–139 second language (L2), 150 and academic achievement, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 273–274

334

INDEX

second language (L2) (cont.) assessment data, interpretation of, 86–87, 113–114t cognitive tests in, 272–273 definition, 5t students, assessment of OLP in, 88–96 time of academic achievement assessment in, 136 second language (L2) learners, language and literacy skills of, 33–60 BICS and CALP, 37–39 contextual, sociocultural, home, and family factors, 42–45 cross-language transfer, 39–42 development of OLP, 46–47 psychologist research findings, 58–59t reading comprehension, 51–53 simple view of reading, 35–37 spelling skills, 54 text-reading fluency, 50–51 typical and atypical development, 45–57 word-level reading skills, 47–50 written expression, 54–56 selective mutism, 211 case study, 254, 255 self-concept, 274, 288 and special needs education, 31 semantics definition, 6t standardized tests and research-based tasks for, 90–91t separation, 68 separation anxiety disorder, 207 short-term orientation, cultures with, 65 Sight Word Bingo (game), 253 Simon Says (game), 93 simple view of reading (SVR) of L2 learners, 34f, 35–37 See also reading comprehension skills of psychologists, 246–247 Slovakia, Roma people in, 25, 26 social acceptance, and special needs education, 31 social communication difficulties, 214–215 social functioning, 177–216

analysis of instruments used to assess, 178–182 case studies, 268, 274–275, 281–282, 288 and cultural differences, 181–182 developmental systems approach, 182–186 dos and don’ts, 216 language demands of standardized psychological tests, 180–181 peer relations and context, 186–194, 188t, 190–193t social networks, 187 social supports, 71–72 parent interview questions to determine sources and quality of, 78–83t societal language, and academic achievement, 16, 18, 19–20 sociocultural factors in L2 language ad literacy development, 42–45 socioeconomic status (SES), and education, 14, 16 sociometrics, peer, 187 special education, 27 case study, 265–270 definition, 8t special needs education, 27–31 definition, 8t equity and due process, 29–30 inclusion, 30–31 psychologist questions, 28t specific learning disorder (SLD), 157 definition, 7t spelling skills of L2 learners, 53–54 standardized tests for academic achievement, 144–145, 152 for intelligence, 122 for OLP, 89–92, 90–91t, 100–101t psychological, language demands of, 180–181 standard scores (SS), 249 Status Indians, 23 story writing, 55–56 strategic knowledge, and L1–L2 transfer, 40–41 strategies of psychologists, 246 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), 180–181

INDEX

stress, 241 parenting, 75, 226 response to, 212–214 Stretch a Sentence, 253 Structure of the Writing Model, 143–144 successful intelligence, 116 suicidal ideation, and depression, 212 suicide of aboriginal peoples, 23 symbols, 182 syntax, definition, 6t system consultation, 230 talk therapy, 245 Teacher attitudes and academic achievement, 139, 147 and consultation, 231–232 Teacher Report Form, 178 Teacher Telephone Interview for ADHD and Related Disorders-DSM-IV Version (TTI), 197, 198 test–teach–test, 94–95 text-level reading, 139, 140, 155 definition, 8t text-reading fluency definition, 8t in L2 learners, 50–51 and reading comprehension, 52 Tic Tac Toe (game), 267 time of academic achievement assessment in L2, 136 of intellectual ability assessment, 122 transfer, definition, 8t trauma, 241 response to, 212–214 trust, developing, 61, 69–71, 119, 184–185 tutor/mentor, 285, 289 20 Questions (game), 93 typology definition, 8t perspective of L1–L2 transfer, 39–40 underidentification, 33 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 29

335

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 29 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2, 9t, 12, 30 Promoting the Rights of Children with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 29 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 12, 22 Convention Against Discrimination in Education, 29 United States, Roma people in, 26 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 29 validity of measures of cognitive ability, 117–119 values, cultural, 73–74 Verbal Comprehension Index, 46 verbal expression, cultural issues in, 251, 254, 255 victimization, peer. See bullying Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition, 121 vocabulary, 97 contextualizing, 123–124 definition, 6t development of ELLs, 46 tests and tasks for, 89 volunteer tutor/mentors, 230, 244 War Trauma Questionnaire, 214 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III), 144, 287 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), 123, 254, 260, 266, 280 comprehension subtest, 124 Matrix Reasoning subset, 126 Vocabulary subtest, 126 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC-III), 126 Wechsler tests, 118 well-being, 15t psychological, 18–21

336

INDEX

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML2), 266, 272, 287 Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition (WJ-III), 123, 126 General Knowledge subset, 126 Spatial Relations subset, 126 Verbal Comprehension subset, 126 Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III Ach), 144, 260, 273, 274, 280 word games, 92–93 The Word Hospital, 287 word-level reading, 139, 155 definition, 8t in L2 learners, 36–37, 47–50 in later childhood, 49 phonological processing for, 41 and reading comprehension, 52 word problem solving, 141 word reading fluency

definition, 8t in L2 learners, 48, 50 word recognition definition, 8t in L2 learners, 49, 50 working memory deficits, 155 and word-level reading skills, 49 Working Memory Index of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), 272 World Bank, 26 worldview, 62 writing academic achievement issues regarding, 139–140, 155 expression, of L2 learners, 54–56 Written Root Word Vocabulary Task, 89, 95, 102–104t Youth Self-Report, 178