The increasing diversity of the U.S. population has resulted in increased concerns about the psychological assessment of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. To date, little empirical research supports recommendations in test selection and interpretation, such as those presented in the Culture–Language Interpretative Matrix (C-LIM). The current investigation was conducted to empirically evaluate the validity of the C-LIM classifications for the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Third Edition (WJ III COG). The WJ III Normative Update standardization sample was used to determine the extent to which the two dimensions of the C-LIM (i.e., cultural loading and linguistic demand) influence performance on 20 of the WJ III tests. Results provide support for a re-classification of the C-LIM. Implications for research and school psychology practices are discussed.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.
2.
ArlinP. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage?Developmental Psychology, 11, 602-606.
3.
BramlettR. K.MurphyJ. J.JohnsonJ.WallingsfordL.HallJ. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: A national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 327-335. doi:10.1002/pits.10022
4.
BrownR. T.ReynoldsC. R.WhitakerJ. S. (1999). Bias in mental testing since bias in mental testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 208-238. doi:10.1037/h0089007
5.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CormierD. C.McGrewK. S.EvansJ. J. (2011). Quantifying the “degree of linguistic demand” in spoken intelligence test directions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 515-533. doi:10.1177/0734282911405962
7.
CumminsJ. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In StreetB.HornbergerN. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd ed., Vol. 2: Literacy (pp. 71-83). New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media LLC.
8.
FigueroaR. A. (1990). Best practices in the assessment of bilingual children. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology II (pp. 93-106). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
9.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: NY. John Wiley.
10.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment with C/D ROM (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
11.
GarciaE.CuellarD. (2006). Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students?The Teachers College Record, 108, 2220-2246.
12.
HemphillJ. F.HowellA. J. (2000). Adolescent offenders and stages of change. Psychological Assessment, 12, 371-381. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.12.4.371
13.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
15.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
JensenA. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York, NY: Free Press.
17.
KingD. W.KingL. A.EricksonD. J.HuangM. T.SharkanskyE. J.WolfeJ. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder and retrospectively reported stressor exposure: A longitudinal prediction model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 624-633.
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, 431-446.
19.
MarshH. W.HauK.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
20.
MatarazzoJ. D.HermanD. O. (1984). Relationship of education and IQ in the WAIS—R standardization sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 631-634. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.52.4.631
21.
McGrewK. S.SchrankF. A.WoodcockR. W. (2007). Technical manual. Woodcock–Johnson III normative update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
22.
Nieves-BrullA. I. (2006). Evaluation of the culture–language matrix: A validation study of test performance in monolingual English speaking and bilingual English/Spanish speaking populations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John’s University. New York, NY.
OchoaS. H.GalarzaA.GonzalezD. (1996). An investigation of school psychologists’ assessment practices of language proficiency with bilingual and limited-English-proficient students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 21, 17-36. doi:10.1177/073724779602100402
25.
OrtizS. O.DyndaA. M. (2005). Use of intelligence tests with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 545-556). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
ReynoldsC. R. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150.
27.
RhodesR. L.OchoaS. H.OrtizS. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ.BoltS. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education, 12th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
29.
SchrankF.A.WendlingB.J. (2012). The Woodcock-Johonson III Normative Update: Tests of cognitive abilities and tests of achievemnt. In FlanaganD.P.HarrisonP.L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (p. 297-335). New York, NY: Guilford Press
30.
StyckK. M.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Diagnostic utility of the Culture–Language Interpretive Matrix for the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children—Fourth edition among referred students. School Psychology Review, 42, 367-382.
31.
TychanskaJ. (2009). Evaluation of speech and language impairment using the culture–language test classifications and interpretive matrix (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saint John’s University, New York, NY.
32.
VerderosaF. A. (2007). Examining the effects of language and culture on the differential ability scales with bilingual preschoolers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John’s University, New York, NY:
33.
WellmanH. M.GelmanS. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337-375.
34.
YsseldykeJ.BurnsM.DawsonP.KelleyB.MorrisonD.OrtizS.. . . TelzrowC. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
