As the diversity of the school-age population in Canada continues to increase, it is important for school psychologists to consider the potential influence of culture and language when assessing the cognitive abilities of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The purpose of this study is to examine the linguistic demand of the oral subtest directions for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and Fifth Edition (WISC-V). Text-based statistics were extracted from the WISC-IV and WISC-V subtests to generate three composite scores: verbosity, complexity, and total demand. Results suggest that the oral directions of the WISC-IV subtests Block Design, Letter–number Sequencing, Cancellation, and Comprehension demonstrate relatively high linguistic demand. The oral subtest directions of the WISC-V subtests Picture Span, Visual Puzzles, and Figure Weights demonstrate relatively high linguistic demand. These findings suggest that the linguistic demand of oral directions should be taken into consideration when selecting and interpreting some subtests from both of these cognitive batteries.
AgueraF. (2006). How language and culture impact test performance on the Differential Ability Scales in a pre-school population (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John’s University, New York, NY.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2015). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
AzizN. (2011). Patterns of cognitive performance for culturally and linguistically diverse individuals with global cognitive impairment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Accession No. 3441046)
4.
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.
5.
CormierD. C.McGrewK. S.YsseldykeJ. E. (2014). The influences of linguistic demand and cultural loading on cognitive test scores. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 610-623. doi:10.1177/0734282914536012
6.
DyndaA. M. (2008). The relation between language proficiency and IQ test performance. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3340910)
7.
FlanaganD. P.McGrewK. S.OrtizS. O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
9.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
10.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.ArlfonsoV. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
11.
GarciaE.CuellarD. (2006). Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students?The Teachers College Record, 108, 2220-2246.
12.
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.
13.
McNamaraD. S.GraesserA. C.McCarthyP. M.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Micro Power and Light Co. (2012). Seven Formulas Software, Version 7.8. Dallas, TX: Micro Power & Light Co.
15.
Nieves-BrullA. (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.
16.
OchoaS. H.PowellM. P.Robles-PiiiaR. (1996). School psychologists’ assessment practices with bilingual and limited-English-proficient students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 250-275.
17.
OrtizS. O. (2008). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., Vol. V, pp. 661-677). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
18.
OrtizS. O.OchoaS. H.DyndaA. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations: Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 526-552). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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.
23.
SullivanA. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317-334.
24.
WechslerD. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
25.
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
26.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
27.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN.SchrankF. A. (2003). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic supplement to the tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
