The linguistic demand of spoken instructions on individually administered norm-referenced psychological and educational tests is of concern when examining individuals who have varying levels of language processing ability or varying cultural backgrounds. The authors present a new method for analyzing the level of verbosity, complexity, and total demand of spoken directions for individually administered test batteries. This preliminary methodological investigation suggests it is possible, and relatively easy, to gather useful empirical information regarding the complexity of spoken test directions using existing (readily available) text readability programs. It is suggested that best practice for individually administered psychological and educational tests may benefit from including this information when tests are published and/or compared.
American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & American Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
BeattyM. J.PayneS. K. (1984). Listening comprehension as a function of cognitive complexity: A research note. Communication Monographs, 51, 85-90.
3.
BrownR. T.ReynoldsC. R.WhitakerJ. S. (1999). Bias in mental testing since bias in mental testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(3), 208-238.
4.
CabassaL. J. (2003). Measuring acculturation: Where we are and where we need to go. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(2), 127.
5.
CormierD. C.HansenA.McGrewK. (2011). Cultural and linguistic biases in cognitive assessment. Paper presented at the February, 2011 conference of the National Association of School Psychologists, San Francisco.
6.
CarrollJ.B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
7.
FangI. E. (1966-1967). The “Easy Listening Formula”. Journal of Broadcasting, 11, 63-68.
8.
FlanaganD. P.McGrewK. S.OrtizS. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
10.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS.AlfonsoV. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
11.
FlanneryW. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 1035.
12.
GarciaE.CuellarD. (2006). Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students?The Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2220-2246.
13.
GreggN.ColemanC.StennettR. B.DavisM. (2002). Discourse complexity of college writers with and without disabilities: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(11), 23-38.
14.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?. New York: Teacher College Press.
15.
JensenA. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York, NY: Free Press.
16.
KlareG. R. (1974). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 62-102.
17.
KlingnerJ. K.ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE.HarryB.ZionS.TateW.. . . RileyD. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 43.
18.
KranzlerJ. H.FloresC. G.CoadyM. (2010). Examination of the cross-battery approach for the cognitive assessment of children and youth from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 431-446.
19.
MatsudairaT. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 462.
20.
McGrewK. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities. Past, present and future. In FlanaganD.Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment. Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 136-202). New York, NY: Guilford.
21.
McGrewK. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1-10.
22.
McGrewK. S.FlanaganD. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Micro Power and Light Co. (1995). Readability calculations (readability calculations). Dallas, TX: Author.
25.
PadillaA. M.PerezW. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 35.
26.
ReynoldsC. R. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 144-150.
27.
ReynoldsM. C.LakinK. C. (1987). Noncategorial special education: Models for research and practice. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp. 331-356). New York, NY: Pergamon.
28.
RhodesR. L.OchoaS. H.OrtizS. A. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
RubinD. L.HaferR.ArataK. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49(2), 121-133.
30.
SawyerD. J.KosoffT. O. (1981). Accommodating the learning needs of reading disabled adolescents: A language-processing issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(1), 61-68.
31.
SayeghL.LasryJ.-C. (1993). Immigrants’ adaptation in Canada: Assimilation, acculturation, and orthogonal cultural identification. Canadian Psychology, 34(1), 98-109.
32.
VandenBosG. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
33.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
34.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN.SchrankF. A. (2003). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic supplement to the tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
35.
YsseldykeJ.BurnsM.DawsonP.KelleyB.MorrisonD.OrtizS.. . . TelzrowC. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
