Assessment and intervention practices with second-language learners among school psychologists

ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION PRACTICES WITH SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS AMONG SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

dalene mccloskey and michelle schicke athanasiou

University of Northern Colorado

This paper describes assessment and intervention practices with second-language learners amongpracticing school psychologists in one southwestern state. A 10-item survey was used to gain in-formation about the assessment instruments and procedures and intervention practices used withlinguistically different children by school psychologists. Surveys were mailed to all members ofthe state professional organization. Thirty-three percent of the surveys were returned and consid-ered usable for analyses. An analysis of the returned surveys revealed that a number of school psy-chologists are using alternative assessment techniques, such as curriculum-based measurement, dy-namic assessment, and portfolio assessment with this population. The majority, however, continueto use traditional cognitive tests, such as the Weschler Scales, and traditional interventions, such asresource room service delivery. Results of the survey are discussed in terms of best practices withlinguistically different children. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Special education assessment and intervention practices with second-language learners are achallenge in the public schools. Legal regulation, literature, and ethical codes from the 1970s to thepresent provide a great deal of guidance in addressing assessment and intervention issues for thispopulation (Bagatz, Hisama, Manni, & Wurtz, 1986; Cummins, 1982, 1984; Duran, 1989; Figueroa,1989, 1990; Hamayan & Damico, 1991). Related to these issues, the purposes of this paper aretwofold. First, the authors will explore issues in the use of traditional and nontraditional assessmentand intervention practices with second-language learners and, second, the authors will document thetypes of assessments and interventions currently being used based on current survey data.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of the literature in this area deals with what not to dorather than providing usable suggestions for assessment and intervention with second-languagelearners. Three notable exceptions are Figueroa’s (1990) discussion of the advantages and disad-vantages of traditional assessment procedures, Garcia and Ortiz’s (1988) discussion of prereferral issues, and the Colorado Department of Education’s (CDE) procedural guidelines manual (1996),which are summarized in Table 1. However, for a number of reasons, including inadequate trainingand lack of materials, school psychologists may continue to use outdated and inadequate assessmentprocedures and may perpetuate treatments that are of questionable validity.

Issues of Bias

The academic preparation and professional development activities for school psychologists,along with professional ethics and legal statutes require that the professional refrain from perform-ing “biased” psychological assessments. The term “biased,” however, appears to have a number ofmeanings depending on the source.

Language-Related Bias Issues

By relying solely on the results of traditional assessment instruments, important factors that im-pact a child’s language proficiency may be minimized. It is critically important in the assessment ofsecond-language learners to consider the child’s linguistic heritage. Unfortunately, many profes-sionals have not become familiar with linguistic concepts that can influence the results of a psycho-logical or psychoeducational evaluation. Because of this, some professionals may arrive at an in-

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 37(3), 2000© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

209

Correspondence to: Dalene McCloskey, School Psychology, University of Northern Colorado, Division of ProfessionalPsychology, Greeley, CO 80639.

correct diagnosis, which may lead to inappropriate interventions (Kretschmer, 1991). Numerous au-thors have pointed out the need to be aware of linguistic phenomena relevant to assessment and treat-ment of second-language learners (Cloud, 1991; Hamayan & Damico, 1991; Krashen & Terrell,1983; Kretschmer, 1991). For example, children learning a second language proceed through a nat-ural order of language development (Cummins, 1984; Krashen & Terrell, 1983). The first step of thisnatural sequence is a silent period that may last for several months. It is followed by words, then sim-ple sentences, and so forth. Cognitive assessment in a second language during this phase of languageacquisition will obviously yield an invalid estimate of the child’s ability.

A second phenomena of second-language acquisition is the iceberg theory, which identifies twotypes of language proficiency (Cummins, 1984). The portion of the iceberg that is above the wateris known as Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), which tend to develop fairly quick-ly, in 1 to 2 years. BICS is the social language children may use on the playground or in the cafete-ria. The portion of the iceberg that is submerged is the Cognitive Academic Language ProficiencySkills (CALPS), and it is the more abstract, higher functions of language that are typically assessedin the verbal portions of a cognitive assessment. A significant period of time is required in order forthe child to acquire proficiency of CALPS in the second language (Cummins, 1987). Older researchsuggested that 5 to 7 years was needed to adequately develop CALPS proficiency (Cummins, 1984).Other researchers suggested that 10 to 12 years is required (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Cummins(1982) suggested that one contributing reason for this lengthy acquisition period is that children inthe dominant language do not wait for second-language learners; they continue to develop their skillsand are perceived in the literature as “moving targets.”

In an educational setting, one of the purposes of assessment is to diagnose a handicapping con-dition, such as learning disability or mental retardation, so that special education services can be pro-vided to the student. This diagnosis relies on identifying a discrepancy between actual achievementand cognitive ability. Many cognitive assessment instruments measure CALPS through the verbalportion of the test. When second-language learners have not acquired CALPS in the second language,the results of verbal cognition measures will likely underestimate the child’s cognitive functioning(Cummins, 1987). One might expect verbal cognition and academic achievement to be commensu-rate, especially literacy, in a second-language learner because both measures tend to reflect the child’slevel of English acquisition. Without a discrepancy, learning disability is more difficult to identify.

210 McCloskey and Athanasiou

Table 1Summary of Three Exceptional Discussions of Assessment With LEP Students

Author Critical Concepts Discussed

Figueroa (1990) * Traditional approached more biased* Offer less information for intervention & program planning* Alternative approaches (dynamic, play-based, etc.) can guide

interventionGarcia & Ortiz (1988) * Advocate for thorough investigation of child’s background

* Investigate current quality of education* Validate current school’s referral practices (do they over or

under refer?)Colorado Department of * In-depth presentation of prereferral guidelines

Education Procedural * Discussion of precautions in the use of standardized test Guidelines Manual instruments

* Provide time lines for when standardized tests may be appropriate based on child’s language acquisition history

Because of the possibility of underestimation of cognitive abilities, mental retardation should not bediagnosed. As will be discussed later, performance measures are somewhat better at identifying dis-crepancies, but are still somewhat biased (Cummins, 1984; Kaufman, 1994).

A related purpose for completing cognitive assessment is to predict academic achievement (Satt-ler, 1992). As will be discussed later, the research is not conclusive regarding the ability of cognitivemeasures to predict academic achievement of second-language learners. Cummins (1984) has writtenthat the academic achievement of second-language learners is not predicted through cognitive assess-ment. Weiss, Prifiteria, and Roid (1993) found evidence of predictive validity with various ethnic mi-norities. As indicated, the verbal portion of intellectual measures can underestimate the cognitive func-tioning of second-language learners depending on the degree of CALPS acquisition (Cummins, 1987).Predictions based on traditional cognitive assessment in the second language may reflect the child’slevel of proficiency in CALPS. It may be less reflective of the child’s potential to learn if instructionwas offered in his/her native language, in which case both BICS and CALPS would be fostered. Thismay be an empirical question, however, which has received limited attention in the literature.

A third purpose for cognitive assessment may be to identify learning strengths and weaknessesin order to develop an instructional program to meet the child’s individual learning style and needsand to measure progress. When properly interpreted, the results of a cognitive assessment may re-veal information that is helpful in designing an effective program of instruction for second-languagelearners. This use of such data is consistent with the objectives of child study teams that aim to pro-vide interventions prior to consideration of special education.

It is very important to consider the implication of the iceberg theory when completing a cogni-tive assessment with second language learners. The interpretation of the results may vary dependingon the purpose of the assessment and in light of how CALPS develops.

A third phenomenon in second-language acquisition is known as the “threshold hypothesis,”and it has two important concepts (Cummins, 1984; Ovando & Collier, 1985). The first concept,known as a “regression” of the first language, basically says that the first language will regress if itis not used and developed. Thus, testing in the first language is problematic if the child is exposedexclusively to the second language for an extended period of time, particularly if CALPS are not ad-equately developed (Schiff-Meyers, 1992). The second concept is known as “arrest” of the secondlanguage. This portion of the hypothesis suggests that a child’s second language will only becomeas proficient as the first language has become (Cummins, 1984; Hamayan & Damico, 1991; Schiff-Meyers, 1992). Thus, if a child does not learn CALPS in the first language it is unlikely that the childcan develop to a CALPS level in the second language. There are far-reaching implications of thisdual-headed phenomenon related to instruction of second-language learners. It makes any assess-ment of second-language learners questionable, and it implores educators to question English as aSecond Language (ESL) instruction over bilingual programs (Damico & Hamayan, 1992; Golden,1990; Hatch, 1978; Ovando & Collier, 1985). Because of the specialized learning needs and the dom-inance of ESL programs, a National Education Association report (1997) questions whether thesechildren are receiving the education to which they are entitled.

Afourth phenomenon is known as the “affective filter” and involves the role of emotion in learn-ing a second language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Generally, a child whose language and culture arevalued will learn a second language quicker and with less affective resistance. In completing a psy-choeducational assessment, the examiner needs to be aware of whether the child’s linguistic profi-ciency is or has been impacted by the affective filter. To assure the positive impact of the affectivefilter, it is important that second-language learners have teachers who value and accept them.

Finally, the concepts of “dominance” and “proficiency” need to be distinguished from one an-other (Holtzman & Wilkinson, 1991; Roseberry-McKibbon, 1994). Dominance is the language thatthe child is most capable of using. All communicative domains need to be considered, including lis-

Assessment and Intervention Practices 211

tening, speaking, writing, and reading. Proficiency, on the other hand, is the level of CALPS that hasbeen developed. So, a child may be, at the same time, dominant in one or more languages, but notproficient in either. In assessment, it is important that the child have dominance and proficiency inthe language of the test.

To summarize, the professional who works with linguistically diverse children must be criti-cally aware of relevant issues in second-language acquisition in order to conduct assessment in anethical manner and to prevent, among other things, the misuse of tests and questionable diagnoses.These include the concepts of dominance and proficiency in language development as well as thephenomena of a natural order of language acquisition for both BICS and CALPS. The iceberg theo-ry says that CALPS are necessary for school success and that 5 to 12 years are needed to establishthese higher level linguistic skills. Other issues include problems that may occur in language acqui-sition as a result of the threshold hypothesis and the affective filter.

Some practitioners may attempt to overcome the dilemmas in assessment of second-languagelearners by using an interpreter and/or administering a test instrument in the child’s native language.These practices are invalid according to Figueroa (1990), because translators may be unfamiliar withthe necessary procedures in standardized assessment and may inadvertently provide clues to thechild. Also, if the test is not standardized in the child’s native language and if there are no norms forusing a translator, the validity of the test is seriously affected.

Legal/Ethical Bias Issues

Numerous court cases have taken issue with the use of traditional psychological instrumentswith certain minorities on the basis of bias. The term “biased,” however, continues to be vague inthe eyes of the law. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA; 1998) requires nondiscriminatoryassessment and intervention [34 CFR Sec. 300.530(b)]. The National Association of School Psy-chologists (1985) and the American Psychological Association (1992) ethical principles state thatprofessionals shall strive to recognize differences in individuals, use appropriate assessment tech-niques, and develop appropriate interventions. Case law is a bit more specific. In Larry P. v. Riles(1972) it was concluded that cognitive assessment with standardized tests is biased with Black chil-dren. As a result, Black children could not be assessed with these instruments in California withoutthe approval of the courts. Other court cases have required testing to account for the child’s nativelanguage (e.g., Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School District, 1978) or that the assessment be com-pleted in the child’s native language (Diana v. State Board of Education, 1970). Case law has alsoimproved the quality of instruction for children needing to learn English (Serna v. Portales Munici-pal Schools, 1975; Casteneda v. Pickard, 1981).

Statistical Bias Issues

Numerous researchers take issue with the statistical concept of bias in psychoeducational as-sessment (Cummins, 1984; Damico, 1991; Dana, 1993; Lopez, 1996). Generally, the validity of testscan be compromised in three ways: mode of administration or personality factors; inappropriate useof the test; and content and construct validity (Padilla & Medina, 1996). The mode of administrationmay be invalidated if the test is translated by the test administrator or administered by someone whois not properly trained. Examiner bias may also enter into the assessment if the examiner is unfa-miliar with the child’s language and culture and inadvertently intimidates the child (Reynolds &Kaiser, 1990). This could result in lack of rapport through lack of communication and may inhibitthe child’s performance (Reynolds & Kaiser). Tests in general should only be used as directed in themanual. Uses other than the intended purpose lead to faulty interpretations.

Construct and content validity issues should be minimized by including a representative sam-ple of minority students in the standardization of a test. The WISC-R had an underrepresentation of


certain minority groups. The WISC-III attempted to minimize bias by including representative pop-ulations according to the most recent, 1989, U.S. census data. According to Cummins (1984, 1987),there was bias with the use of the WISC-R (Weschler, 1974) with minority children; and Kaufman(1994) has reservations with the WISC-III (Weschler, 1991). Cummins (1987) and Kaufman (1994)suggest that the Weschler Scales do not measure ability; rather the scales measure concepts that havebeen presented to the child. As evidence of the claim, Cummins (1984) cited the low predictabilityof academic development based on WISC-R (Weschler, 1974) scores for minority children. Cum-mins (1984) believes even the Performance Scale of the Weschler Scales fail to provide adequatepredictive validity for academic achievement. Kaufman (1994) suggested that the Full Scale scoreof the WISC-III (Weschler, 1991) is not acceptable as a valid indicator of ability for certain minori-ty groups even though empirical fairness has been demonstrated (Kaufman, 1994). Kaufman con-siders the Performance Scale and Perceptual Organization factors as more acceptable measures, buthe believes that these should be supplemented in order to complete profile analysis with minoritystudents. More recently, Weiss et al. (1993) found adequate predictive validity for academic achieve-ment among various ethnic minorities using the WISC-III. However, Tanner-Halverson, Burden, andSabers (1993) found item bias with a group of Native American children using the WISC-III. His-panic and American Indian children tend to consistently score lower on the Verbal than Performancescales of the WISC-III (Kaufman, 1994). Kaufman pointed out that the Verbal score is not a reflec-tion of the child’s intellectual potential although it may be useful in better understanding the child.

A better instrument, according to Cummins (1984) and Holtzman and Wilkinson (1991), is theKaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983) because it hasmuch lower loading on verbal skills and because it provides several supplemental norming groups.Unfortunately, the results of studies dealing with the KABC’s predictive validity among differentethnic groups were found to be inconsistent. Glutting (1986) and Valencia and Rankin (1988) founda lack of predictive validity using academic measures, but Worthington and Bening (1988) found ev-idence for predictive validity with White, Black, and Hispanic children. According to several ex-perts, even so-called “culture fair” tests may have an element of bias, as they can only measure whatthe child has experienced (Bagatz et al., 1986; Damico, 1998).

Sattler (1992), on the other hand, states that there is little merit to the argument against the useof intelligence tests with minority students for reasons of cultural bias. He states that when socio-economic status (SES) is accounted for, IQ measures have reasonable accuracy as a measure of in-telligence for all children. This position suggests that validity depends on the inclusion of certaingroups in the norming at a proportionate rate, and that linguistic and cultural factors not explainedby SES are irrelevant.

Sociopolitical Issues

In addition to the psychometric issues, there are important sociopolitical issues related to bias(Cummins, 1989). Cummins identified an element of discrimination such that children who are iden-tified on the basis of traditional testing are denied educational opportunities that would optimize theirlearning and that this maintains their position in society. The identification of minority children forspecial education services, rather than providing an appropriate education (in their native language),promotes this discrimination because children in special education rarely graduate from special ed-ucation. They often are denied opportunities in society as a whole because of their educational ex-periences, or lack of them.

Because of course work and practical training, most professionals are aware of the legal andethical responsibilities to complete “nonbiased” assessment, such as conducting the assessment inthe child’s native language. Most professionals can also readily identify statistical issues that rendera test biased, such as avoiding tests that do not include representative samples of minority students.


However, for a number of reasons, including the lack of training, lack of knowledge about the lin-guistic concepts, and a lack of available alternatives, it is suspected that supposedly biased tests con-tinue to be used.

Assessment and Intervention

Many states have an ever increasing population of linguistically diverse learners. As discussed,an inexperienced professional may use traditional procedures and inaccurately identify a child whois learning a second language as having a disability, which qualifies the child to receive special ed-ucation. Conversely, the practitioner may fail to identify a child with special needs when they exist.Both practices penalize children.

Assessment in the schools consists of four goals: screening for disabilities, diagnosing as man-dated by law, planning interventions, and determining the rate of progress (Holtzman & Wilkinson,1991; Westby, Dominguez, & Oetter, 1996). Holtzman and Wilkinson (1991) stated that traditional as-sessment procedures fulfill current legal guidelines, but fail to assist with planning interventions anddocumenting progress. Numerous authors write that traditional assessment practices, with their discretepoint emphasis, should be replaced or at least supplemented with alternative procedures that are moredynamic and that address the additional goals of intervention planning and documenting progress, es-pecially when working with second-language learners (Damico, 1992; Myers, McBride, & Peterson,1996; Oller & Damico, 1991; O’Malley, 1992; Roseberry-McKibbon, 1994). O’Malley stated that thereis a growing national interest in alternative assessment techniques that emphasize process and authen-ticity in the assessment process (Damico, 1998) because of dissatisfaction with standardized tools. Thedissatisfaction is especially true in assessment of second-language learners where no one cognitive as-sessment procedure is perceived as adequate (Holtzman & Wilkinson, 1991).

Alternative practices, such as judgment-based and play-based assessment, have been success-fully used in early childhood assessment for a number of years (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1991). Oth-er procedures, such as curriculum-based measurement, dynamic assessment, portfolio assessment,and local norms, are recent advances that appear to be curriculum related and perhaps better reflectthe complexity of the second-language learner’s task in the classroom (Chamberlain & Medinas-Landurand, 1991; O’Malley, 1992; Roseberry-McKibbon, 1994). These alternative assessment pro-cedures are offered as alternatives and supplements to the psychoeducational technology that is cur-rently being used in the schools.

Play-Based Assessment

Play-based assessment is particularly appropriate for the younger child, especially if the par-ents are a part of the team of assessors. Myers et al. (1996) demonstrated that parents were able tobe involved in play-based assessment regardless of educational and income levels. Although the useof play-based assessment is not documented with culturally and linguistically different children, itrepresents an alternative that is worth investigating. When combined with judgment-based ap-proaches, it provides an assessment methodology that easily includes parents, which is emphasizedin the reauthorization of IDEA (1998, 34 CFR Sec. 300.226). Research with parents and teachers(Fleischer, Belgredan, Bagnato, & Ogonosky, 1990; Hayes, 1990; Miller, 1988) suggests that par-ents’ ratings of their children may underestimate an infant’s ability, but become more accurate as thechild becomes older. Teachers’ judgments of students’ personal characteristics were found to be re-liable predictors of scholastic success (Archer & Edwards, 1982). Thus, the research suggests thatparents and teachers should be included as informants in assessment.

Curriculum-Based and Portfolio Assessment

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and portfolio assessment may be used for child studyteams in order to track a second-language learner’s rate of progress (Baker & Good, 1995; Chamber-


lain & Medinas-Landurand, 1991; O’Malley, 1992). When a second-language learner is making mea-surable progress he or she is less likely to have a learning disability. When progress is not made afterimplementing several different interventions, a better case is made for the identification of a learningdisability. These newer approaches also link assessment more intimately to appropriate intervention.

For example, curriculum-based measurement allows the practitioner to identify when the childis making progress and when there is a plateau (Jitendra & Rohena-Diaz, 1996). A plateau suggeststhat the intervention is not effective and should be reevaluated and redesigned (Shinn, 1989). WhenCBM procedures were used to evaluate and modify students’ instructional intervention, research con-sistently found improved outcomes (Shinn & Baker, 1996). For English-speaking students, CBMprocedures are good predictors of reading success in the classroom (Marston, 1989). Research hasfound that CBM has at least as much validity for second-language learners as English-only studentsas a measure of reading progress (Baker & Good, 1995). Using CBM has beneficial side effects inthat students become more aware of and enthusiastic about their own progress (Fuchs, Deno, &Mirkin, 1984).

Portfolio assessment is another procedure that would be especially useful for migrant childrenbecause the portfolios could be kept with their cumulative files which are a permanent record. Thecum follows children from school to school. Thus, if a portfolio of academic work were part of acum, it would provide a measure of academic growth that follows children to subsequent schools.(Baker & Good, 1995). Portfolio assessment is identified as a performance-based measure and isidentified numerous times in the literature as an efficient alternative assessment procedure for sec-ond-language learners (Damico, 1992, 1998; O’Malley, 1992). This method would allow the specialeducation team to document the child’s progress over time and to provide individualized interven-tions, just as in the curriculum-based method. Most of the research dealing with performance-basedassessments investigate interrater reliability. The findings suggest that when measurement criteriaare clearly stated and when raters are adequately trained, reliable ratings can be obtained (Baker,O’Neill, & Linn, 1993).

Dynamic Assessment

Dynamic assessment procedures involve a test-teach-retest paradigm (Lidz, 1991) that focuseson the learner’s modifiability or increase in metacognitive strategies to use in problem solving. Thepurpose of dynamic assessment must be understood by the examiner, as it is not intended as a place-ment tool. Rather, it is intended as a method of understanding the learner in an educational settingand designing interventions to make the student more successful in the curricular requirements.There is no conclusive evidence of dynamic assessment as a predictor of academic success, but insome reports it has been shown to be as good as some traditional cognitive tests (Lidz, 1991). Theadvantage of dynamic assessment is that it also assists with the objective of intervention planning.

Best Practices

Several sources strongly recommend intense, meaningful prereferral strategies and proceduresto avoid inappropriate labeling of second-language learners (Colorado Department of Education,1996; Damico, 1998; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988). The use of the process-oriented procedures just de-scribed (dynamic, portfolio, CBM, judgment-based) add a great deal to the prereferral process as away to document whether a child is making progress under optimal circumstances (appropriate in-terventions being applied appropriately). When a child is unable to make progress with careful mon-itoring and redesigning of objectives and methods, there is a stronger case for the possibility of anacademically handicapping condition. Some states require documentation of a disability through theuse of standardized tests. Best practices suggest that nonverbal measures, culture-free measures, orlocal norms be used for this task (Figueroa, 1990) even though there is evidence that none of themis truly nonbiased (Damico, 1998).


Westby et al. (1996) recommended a combination of alternative assessment procedures to en-sure a comprehensive assessment of second-language learners. These authors recognize the benefitsof an ecologically based, dynamic assessment process because it can provide a window into how thechild arrives at answers and also provides insight into the child’s motivation, self-control, and tem-perament, which are critical components of assessment. Kellerman, Ammerlaan, Bongaerts, andPoulisse (1991) believe that a process orientation, such as in alternative assessment procedures, looksat the learner’s resources, which is helpful in designing interventions. The disadvantages of theseprocedures, particularly the time-consuming nature, are offset by the knowledge that is gained tohelp the second-language learner be successful in a regular education setting.

If a second-language learner qualifies for special education, best practices recommend that thechild be taught in the native language until CALPS are established (Gersten & Woodward, 1994;Willig & Ortiz, 1991). This presents a huge dilemma as there is currently a critical shortage of bilingual special education teachers (National Education Association, 1996). The choices often in-clude inclusion in the bilingual regular education classroom with support from the English-speakingspecial education teacher or special education with the English-speaking special education teacher.Gersten and Woodward (1994) suggested that second-language learners be included in the regu-lar classroom with collaborative support from special education and ESL or bilingual education teachers.

Current Practices in Assessment and Intervention

The current study investigated current assessment and intervention practices with second-lan-guage learners in the public schools among school psychologists in one southwestern state. Specif-ically, the researchers were interested in learning what tools and techniques currently are used toidentify students with diverse linguistic backgrounds for special education, what nontraditional tech-niques are used, how the professional became acquainted with nontraditional techniques, and thetypes of services or interventions students receive if they are identified as having special needs.

Method

A 10-item survey was used to document the types of assessments and interventions that are be-ing used by school psychologists and their school-based teams with second-language learners. Par-ticipants included 96 school psychologists who responded by mail to the survey.

A 10-item survey was mailed to the school psychologists in a self-addressed stamped envelope.A copy of the survey is available from the first author. Items asked about current practices, barriersto using less traditional assessment and intervention techniques, methods of becoming familiar withless traditional techniques, and minimal demographic data. Questions about assessment instrumentsand intervention practices were rated on a Likert scale related to the frequency of their use. Partici-pants were also asked to identify how they became familiar with newer assessment procedures. De-mographic data asked about the number of years as a school psychologist, whether they worked inan urban or rural site, number of students in their work site, and number of second-language learn-ers assessed during the 1997–1998 school year.

Surveys were mailed to all 287 members of one southwestern state’s school psychology asso-ciation in July 1998, with a plea that they be returned before the end of July 1998. Because of thisshort time line, the first author made a follow-up phone call to all subjects who had not respondedwithin 2 weeks.

A total of 118 returned surveys comprised 41% of the state association’s membership. Of the118 returned, 22 were not usable because notations on the surveys indicated that the individuals werenot currently practicing in the schools. Several had either retired, were university instructors, helddifferent positions in their school assignment (such as special education teacher or school counselor),


or were students who had not yet completed a practicum in the schools. Therefore, the results arebased on 96 surveys (33% of the state association membership).

Results and Discussion

Demographics

Demographic data show a wide range in the number of schools and students served, and as-sessments completed. These data are summarized in Table 2. A majority of the respondents (65%)reported practicing in an urban setting, with the remaining 35% practicing in a rural setting, basedon a population of 40,000 or fewer being rural and over 40,000 being urban. Demographic data in-dicated that the respondents are an experienced group of school psychologists as they have an aver-age of 10 years in the profession, which is significant when other educational specialists have an av-erage burn-out rate of 6 years (Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997). Special education teachers who workwith students with emotional and behavioral disorders have an even quicker exit from the field, withapproximately 30% of these teachers leaving education after only 2 years (Lawrenson & McKinnon,1982). The respondents are also well educated, with 36% having a doctoral degree, 23% with edu-cational specialist degrees, and 41% with masters degrees.

It is interesting to note that 30 respondents reported that they had not assessed any second-lan-guage learners during the 1997–1998 school year. However, only 4 respondents reported that En-glish is the only language used in their school(s). The most frequently reported second language was,as expected, Spanish (69%). Not expected was the second most frequently reported language of Rus-sian (13%), followed by Vietnamese (5%), Hmong and Korean (0.18%), and Navajo, Ute, Chinese,and Italian (0.06%).

Assessment Instruments


Table 2Assessment Procedures and Instruments Used by Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

Standardized TestsWISC 57%TONI-3 43%CTONI 9%KABC 25%DAS1 9%MAT1 2%PPVT-R1 2%UNIT1 1%

Nonstandardized ProceduresClassroom observation 79%Teacher judgment 77%Teacher/parent interview 55%

Alternative ProceduresCBM 51%Portfolio assessment 31%Dynamic assessment 29%Local norms 26%

1These percentages reflect write-in responses.

Of primary interest were the traditional and nontraditional cognitive assessment instruments ortechniques that are used most frequently with second-language learners being assessed for specialeducation. Table 2 summarizes specific instruments and procedures according to the percentage ofrespondents who use them.

As suspected, the Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children–III (WISC-III; Weschler, 1991)continues to have a corner on the assessment market. Based on survey results, the WISC-III is usedfrequently with second-language learners even though there are many alternatives that may providemore interpretive information. Many respondents indicated that they use only the Performance Scaleof the WISC-III. However, as indicated earlier in this paper, even the Performance Scale is not with-out bias (Damico, 1998; Holtzman & Wilkinson, 1991). Several professionals indicated that they usethe Escala de Inteligencia para Nivel Escolar Weschler (WISC-RM; Gomez-Palacio, Padilla, & Roll,1983), the Spanish version of the WISC. Although this seems like a good alternative, several au-thorities believe the 1983 norming for this instrument is both outdated and inappropriate as it wasnormed on children from Mexico City who may be quite different culturally and linguistically fromthe second-language children assessed in the United States (Figueroa, 1989).

The second most frequently used standardized test was the Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence–3(TONI-3; Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnson, 1997), which measures abstract/figural problem solving.According to Athanasiou’s review (in press), the TONI-3 has sound psychometric properties and hasthe advantages of a nonverbal administration format and practice items that may reduce bias withlinguistically diverse individuals. The primary disadvantages are the lack of predictive and constructvalidity, which are especially salient considerations when assessing this same group. It is also a uni-dimensional measure as it measures only one aspect of intellectual functioning.

Several professionals wrote that although they preferred the KABC for this population they re-sisted using it currently, because of reservations regarding its outdated 1983 norms. It appeared theyhad successfully used the less verbally loaded instrument in the past, but at the current time did notbelieve it was adequate.

Observation, teacher judgment, and interviews are important assessment techniques and ap-peared to be used by a great number of professionals. The Matrix Analogies Test (MAT; Naglieri,1985), the Differential Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott, 1990), and the Comprehensive Test of Non-Ver-bal Intelligence (CTONI; Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholtz, 1997) were used infrequently as wasthe Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981, 1996). The MAT may be con-sidered more appropriate as it is a nonverbal instrument while the PPVT is completely verbal. Ac-cording to Sattler (1992), the PPVT should “never be used to estimate the cognitive skills of His-panic-American students” (p. 596). Both the PPVT-R and PPVT-III are designed to be tests ofreceptive vocabulary with English-speaking individuals (Dunn & Dunn, 1981, 1996). The Univer-sal Non-verbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken & McCallum, 1998) is becoming more well known.Although it was used by only one school psychologist, it was identified as a possibility by severalmore professionals when funding in their districts becomes available. The literature suggests that thismay be a good, alternative standardized technique as it minimizes verbal skills and cultural influ-ences and demonstrates adequate psychometric properties (Athanasiou, in press; McGrew & Flana-gan, 1998).

Nontraditional Assessment Techniques

According to survey results, nontraditional assessment techniques are used more often than ex-pected, especially the CBM procedures. Several of these nontraditional techniques can be used dur-ing the prereferral phase of intervention, before a child is assessed to determine whether the childcan make progress with simple classroom interventions. In this case, children would benefit fromregular education with modifications and would not need a special education assessment. Several re-


spondents commented that they would have liked a description of the CBM and dynamic assessmentprocedures, because they were unsure whether they might be using them.

A second research question asked how the professional had become familiar with nontraditionalassessment techniques. Inservices were cited as the most frequent method of learning (60%). Per-sonal experience, or on-the-job training, was cited as the second most frequent method (59%); in-teractions with other professionals was third (58%); journal articles (56%) was fourth; and least frequently cited was through coursework (38%). There appear to be several options in terms of con-tinuing education opportunities. Because the professionals used inservices as a major vehicle for ac-quiring new skills, perhaps state departments of education (SDE) and the state professional associ-ations would be interested in additional training through their own workshops.

A third area of interest was why nontraditional assessment techniques were not used more fre-quently. Three choices were offered in the survey: lack of information or training, lack of materials,and policy barriers. Thirty-six percent indicated they did not have adequate training or information,30% indicated a lack of materials, such as CBM tools, and 17% indicated there was a district or pol-icy barrier to using nontraditional techniques. Because 36% of the professionals reported a lack ofinformation and 30% reported lack of materials as the primary barriers to using nontraditional tech-niques, it appeared there is not a resistance but rather a lack of resources. The lack of informationcould be overcome through inservice education.

The lack of materials could also be overcome in some cases. For example, curricular materials,instead of specialized materials, can be used for CBM procedures that could be easily explained inan inservice. Similarly, the rationales and methodology for using portfolios and the procedures forcompleting local norms could be explained in an inservice. Dynamic assessment may require more,in terms of materials and training, but the rationale and method could be taught in an inservice orworkshop format. Play-based assessment may require the greatest investment as training of an en-tire team through coursework is generally recommended.

Knowledge of Procedural Guidelines

With regard to how many of the professionals were familiar with the procedural guidelines man-ual that is published by the state department of education, only 20% of the respondents reported hav-ing a copy of the manual. Another 34% knew that there is such a manual, but did not have a copy. Intotal, 54% of the school psychologists who responded knew that their state has a procedural manu-al for assessment and intervention of second-language learners. Forty-six percent of the respondentslearned that the SDE has this manual through the mail survey used in this project. This is unfortu-nate because the manual is very informative and helpful and may assist the professional from prere-ferral interventions, by offering suggestions for the prereferral process, through the entire special ed-ucation process, including suggested time lines for when and how to assess second-languagelearners. The use of this manual may prevent inappropriate referrals and identification of second-lan-guage learners as special education students. The state in which the survey was completed has beentraining groups of professionals from various school districts. This is commendable, but perhaps themanual should be offered to other school psychologists directly, because it appears the manual is notwidely used. School psychologists in other states who are unsure whether their state has a proceduralmanual may want to inquire so that they are kept abreast of the state’s most current guidelines.

Comfort Level

Because the assessment of second-language learners has become a challenge to school psy-chologists, the questionnaire asked about comfort level with this type of assessment. A 5-point Lik-ert scale was used for this measurement, with 1 being least comfortable and 5 being most comfort-able. The average comfort level of all respondents was 2.6, which the researchers considered to be


low. Twenty-two respondents (24%) indicated they were moderately to completely comfortable (4and 5 on the scale) with assessment of second-language learners, but the other 76% who completethese assessments experience significantly less confidence. Fifteen of the respondents (16%) indi-cated they were uncomfortable (1 on the scale). Based on write-in survey data, it appears that a num-ber of districts have overcome this issue by contracting with bilingual school psychologists or byhaving a bilingual team within the district.

Interventions

With regard to intervention, it is important to note that only 57 respondents completed each itemon this section of the survey. A Likert scale was used to measure types of intervention with 1 5 notused and 5 5 used all the time. When items were not coded it was assumed that the intervention wasnot used and was coded as 1. Data were collected from a total of 75 of the surveys (64% of respon-dents) in this manner (18 having an assumption of not used). It is important to note that many re-spondents had a concern with this question. They indicated that it is very difficult to generalize aboutservice delivery because they attempt to individualize for the child and the child’s needs. Addition-ally, it is important to note that services may overlap. It is likely that multiple service deliveries wereused with each identified child. For example, a bilingual paraprofessional and pull-out special edu-cation may have both been available to the child. In most of the comparisons special education wasused more frequently than ESL services. Table 3 summarizes the types of services reported.

Several service delivery options were presented in the survey. Based on a review of the data, atleast 75% of the second-language learners who qualified for special education received direct ser-vices through an ESL-type program (55% pull out; 16% self-contained ESL). Another 49% receivedESL in the classroom, but it is unclear whether these services were direct or consultative. Using sur-vey data, it is also difficult to determine the degree of overlap of these services. It is not surprisingthat such a high number of second-language learners are receiving support through ESL programsas case law entitles children who are non-English proficient to receive educational opportunities re-flecting their language needs (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). This is often interpreted as English instruction,and the child is entitled to these services regardless of special education status.

The most frequently used type of service delivery was through pull-out special education (63%)followed closely by provision of special education in the regular classroom (58%). The third mostused service delivery for the second-language learners who qualified for special education wasthrough a pull-out ESL program (55%). Very few students were served through self-contained ESL(16%) or self-contained special education (13%). Several authors recommend that second-language


Table 3Methods of Service Delivery by Percentage of Respondents

Service Percentage of Respondents

Pull-out special education 63%Regular education with special education 58%

(SPED) provided in the regular classroomPull-out English as Second Language (ESL) 55%Regular education with ESL provided in the 49%

classroomBilingual paraprofessional 47%Bilingual ESL teacher 37%Bilingual (SPED) teacher 18%Self-contained ESL 16%Self-contained (SPED) 13%

learners with special needs be served through a combination of special education and bilingual pro-grams so that they receive the benefit of expertise from both programs (Baca & Cervantes, 1991;Gersten & Woodward, 1994). Perhaps this is occurring and was not reflected in the results of the sur-vey. Or perhaps this is reflective of the lack of perceived efficacy of ESL programs. An obvious rec-ommendation is that school districts with a higher number of second-language learners should con-tinue their efforts at recruiting bilingual and bicultural teachers. This is especially important fordistricts with a high concentration of second-language learners.

Based on survey results, 47% of the respondents reported using bilingual paraprofessionals and18% had bilingual special education teachers. Only 37% had bilingual ESL teachers. Again, it is dif-ficult to quantify how many students receive services from bilingual teachers or paraprofessionalsbased on survey data. The data suggest that bilingual paraprofessionals are a critical component ofservice delivery for these students. The degree of training that they received was not assessed in thesurvey. A logical recommendation is that the paraprofessionals receive specialized training so thatthey understand second-language acquisition and special education issues and so that the second-language learners receive optimal instruction.

In addition to asking about service delivery, the survey asked about methods of reporting achild’s progress. The most frequently cited method was through annual reviews of the child’s Indi-vidualized Education Plan (IEP), 82%. Additional periodic reports were also cited, 46%. These re-ports were completed monthly to quarterly. Curriculum-based measurement was used by 37% of therespondents, and portfolios were used by 17% of the respondents, to track and report children’sprogress. It is important to note that this research was completed prior to the final 1998 IDEA reau-thorization regulations and thus does not reflect changes that may have been made during the 1998–1999 school year.

Future Directions and Conclusion

The change from traditional to nontraditional assessment procedures will require professionalsto become more adept with ongoing measurement and progress of a child’s skills rather than the tra-ditional static “one-shot” assessment. It may also require policymakers to be less concerned withstandardized test results and more concerned with how a child makes progress in the classroom. Uni-versity program instructors for school psychologists may also want to take note that only about athird of the respondents had learned of nontraditional assessment techniques through coursework.The average number of years since graduation was 10; perhaps the assessment of linguistically di-verse children was not as compelling an issue at that time. However, because of the potential for ty-ing assessment to intervention (Damico, 1998; O’Malley, 1992; Westby et al., 1996) nontraditionaltechniques should be presented through coursework in training programs in the 1990s. A brief pe-rusal of 25 graduate programs in school psychology via the Internet suggested that assessment of andintervention with second-language learners is generally included as a topic in assessment courses.There are specialized multicultural counseling, school psychology, and special education courses of-fered through the school psychology programs at Arizona State University, Florida International Uni-versity, and San Diego State University, but this specialty is not specifically mentioned as a coursein most of the university programs that were reviewed.

New graduates could become leaders in assisting school-based professionals to make the shiftfrom strictly quantitative assessment to less traditional, qualitative practices. Based on the results ofthe survey, about half of the school psychologists read about alternative assessments in their profes-sional journals. Slightly more than half reported learning about new assessment practices throughjournal articles. The survey did not ask whether the respondents believed there is adequate coverageof the topic. However, it appears that journals are serving as a method of continuing professional de-velopment for many practitioners.


In addition to promoting the use of nontraditional assessment and intervention through inser-vice education, coursework, and professional journals, it appeared that the SDE in which the surveywas conducted could do a better job of promoting the procedural manual that is available. About athird of the respondents reported that they had not assessed any second-language learners during the1997–1998 school year. However, all but three respondents reported that there are second-languagelearners in their schools. These data, by themselves, lead to questions about underidentification, un-less these are the professionals who have the benefit of bilingual teams who complete their assess-ments.

It is important to note that there are some significant limitations in this study. The results arebased on only 33% of the state school psychology association membership, which does not accountfor all practicing school psychologists in the state. As a result, the results of the research may not betruly representative of the assessment and intervention practices among one state’s school psychol-ogists and their treatment of second-language learners, let alone be representative on a nationwidebasis. Additional data, perhaps on a national basis, would be very beneficial to understand nationalpractices. The respondents who chose to return the survey may have included those who have a moresignificant interest in the topic and more potential to be impacted by second-language learners. An-other issue with the results is that not all respondents responded to all questions. There may havebeen a greater or lesser number of respondents on any one question, particularly with regard to in-tervention. There also appeared to be some confusion with the terminology used in the survey. It mayhave been helpful to be more precise with the term “second language learner,” for example. It mayalso have been helpful to find a more precise way to measure interventions.

Future research in this area may attempt to sample more professionals, perhaps from a varietyof states to get a better picture of national practices in assessment and intervention of second-lan-guage learners. It may also be interesting to compare the states with each other and identify whetherthere are geographic trends, especially because some states may have fewer second-language stu-dents. If this should occur, it would be important to investigate any state regulations or policy be-cause of the possible impact on assessment and intervention. Another possible area of interest is howassessment and intervention may be different between Spanish speakers and second-language-learn-ing children whose primary language is other than Spanish. This research suggested that bilingualSpanish assessment is possible in many locales. It is unlikely that bilingual Russian school psychol-ogists, for example, are as widely available. It would be interesting to note whether the rate of re-ferral and identification is different from Spanish learners and whether the intervention is any differ-ent. Relatedly, it would be interesting to have a better picture of the details of an IndividualizedEducation Plan (IEP) for second-language learners who receive special education. Recent researchsuggests that ESL and the need for instruction in the native language is rarely mentioned in the IEP(Willig & Ortiz, 1991). Certainly these issues should be discussed during a staffing conference. How-ever, once instruction is promised and contracted on an IEP, the school district is required to issuesuch services. It may be technically impossible to provide instruction in the child’s native languagebecause of the unavailability of bilingual teachers even though the team may recognize the benefits.

In conclusion, it appeared that assessment and intervention practices among second-languagelearners continues to be a timely topic. Although a greater number of school psychologists reportedusing alternative assessment techniques than was expected, the WISC-III continues to hold a domi-nance in assessment materials. CBM, however, appeared to be a very popular assessment technique.Inservices and journals appeared to be a good method of introducing new practices to school psy-chologists, and there appeared to be a lack of introduction to alternative techniques in training pro-grams. The issue of special education and second-language learners is critical. It is important to avoidboth under- and over-identification of second-language learners for special education. The SDE de-veloped a procedural guidelines manual to assist special education professionals with this charge.


Unfortunately, nearly half of the school psychologists who responded to this survey did not knowabout the manual. Special education intervention services appeared to be practical with children be-ing primarily served through pull-out special education services. ESL services were used less frequently than special education for identified children. The lack of bilingual special educators cer-tainly limits special education intervention in the child’s native language. Special education assess-ment and intervention is a critical topic and the number of second-language learners increases. It willbe important to continue to develop new assessment technology and make alternative techniquesavailable to professionals. It will also be critical to develop appropriate intervention practices to meetthe needs of these children.

References

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of ethics. American Psychologist,47, special insert.

Archer, P., & Edwards, J.R. (1982). Predicting school achievement from data on pupils obtained from teachers: Toward ascreening device for disadvantage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 761–770.

Athanasiou, M.S. (in press). Current nonverbal assessment instruments: A comparison of psychometric integrity and test fair-ness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

Baca, L.M., & Cervantes, H.T. (1991). Bilingual special education (Report No. EDO-EC-91-1). Reston, VA: Clearinghouseof Handicapped and Gifted Children.

Bagatz, B.E., Hisama, T., Manni, J.L., & Wurtz, R.G. (1986). Cognitive assessment of non-white children. In O. Taylor (Ed.),Treatment of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 67–115), San Diego, CA:College Hill Press.

Bagnato, S.J., & Neisworth, J.T. (1991). How can the psychologist “Test without tests?” In S.J. Bagnato & J.T. Neisworth,Assessment for early interventions: Best practices for professionals (pp. 71–84), New York: The Guilford Press.

Baker, S.K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A val-idation study with second grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–578.

Baker, E.L., O’Neill, H.F., & Linn, R.L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. AmericanPsychologist, 48, 1210–1218.

Bracken, B.A., & McCallum, R.S. (1998). Universal Non-Verbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Brown, L., Sherbenou, R.J., & Johnson, S.K. (1997). Test of Non-verbal Intelligence–3rd edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Casteneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).Chamberlain, P., & Medinas-Landurand, P. (1991). Practical considerations for the assessment of limited English proficient

students with special needs. In E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual stu-dents (pp. 111–156), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Cloud, N. (1991). Educational assessment. In E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilin-gual students (pp. 219–245), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Colorado Department of Education. (1996). Special education and second language learners: Meeting the challenges, realiz-ing the opportunities. Procedural Guidelines. Denver, CO: Author.

Cummins, J. (1982). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students (Report No. BBB 21974). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearing-house for bilingual education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 238 907).

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College HillPress.

Cummins, J. (1987). Psychoeducational assessment in multicultural school systems. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Chil-dren, 3, 115–117.

Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 111–119.Damico, J.S. (1991). Descriptive assessment of communicative ability in limited English proficient students. In E.V. Hamayan

& J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 157–217), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Damico, J.S. (1992). Performance assessment of language minority students (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

349 815).Damico, J.S. (1998, November). Bilingual/multicultural assessment. Paper presented at The Children’s Hospital Annual Lan-

guage and Learning Conference, Arvada, CO.Damico, J.S., & Hamayan, E.V. (1992). Multicultural language intervention: Addressing cultural and linguistic diversity. Buf-

falo, NY: Educom Associates.Dana, R.H. (1993). Multicultural assessment practice. In R.H. Dana (Ed.), Multicultural assessment perspectives for profes-

sional psychology (pp. 199–224). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.


Diana v. State Board of Education, Cir. No. 7037 R.F.P. (N. D. Cal. 1970) consent decree.Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.N. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser-

vices.Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1996). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.Duran, R.P. (1989). Assessment and instruction of at-risk Hispanic students. Exceptional Children, 56, 154–158.Elliott, C.D. (1990). Differential Ability Scales. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Figueroa, R.A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps and regulations. Exceptional

Children, 56, 145–152.Figueroa, R.A. (1990). Best practices in the assessment of bilingual children. In A. Thomas & T. Grimes (Eds.). Best prac-

tices in school psychology–II (pp. 93–105), Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Fleischer, K.H., Belgredan, J.H., Bagnato, S.J., & Ogonosky, A.B. (1990). An overview of judgment-based assessment. Top-

ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 23–23.Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum based measurement and evaluation on ped-

agogy, student achievement and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. New

Focus: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 5, 1–12.Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Ex-

ceptional Children, 60, 310–322.Glutting, J.J. (1986). Potthoff bias analyses of KABC MPC and nonverbal scale IQs among Anglo, Black, and Puerto Rican

kindergarten children. Professional School Psychology, 1, 225–234.Golden, J. (1990). Teaching language minority students. Colorado Reading Council Journal, Spring, 16–20.Gomez-Palacio, M.M., Padilla, E.R., & Roll, S. (1983). Mexico City Escala de Inteligencia para Nivel Escolar Weschler

[Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children]. Mexico City: El Manual Moderno, S. A. de C. V.Guadalupe Organization, Inc. v. Tempe Elementary School District, 387 F.2d 1022 (9th Cir. 1978).Hamayan, E.V., & Damico, J.S. (1991). Developing and using a second language. In E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.),

Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 39–75), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Hammill, D.D., Pearson, N.A., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1997). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-

Ed.Hatch, E.M. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Bowley, MA: Newberry House.Hayes, A. (1990). The context and future of judgment-based assessment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10,

1–12.Holtzman, W.H., Jr., & Wilkinson, C.Y. (1991). Assessment of cognitive ability. In E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Lim-

iting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 247–280), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendment of 1997. Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37, regulations appearing at 34 C.F.R.

Parts 300-301 (1998).Jitendra, A.K., & Rohena-Diaz, E. (1996). Language assessment of students who are linguistically diverse: Why a discrete

approach is not the answer. School Psychology Review, 25, 40–56.Kaufman, A. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-

ance Systems.Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T., Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1991). Systems and hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies.

In R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Anderson, & S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language(pp. 163–178), New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: The Ale-many Press.

Kretschmer, R.E. (1991). Exceptionality and the limited English proficient student: Historical and practical contexts. In E.V.Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 1–38), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972).Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S. Ct. 786 (1974).Lawrenson, G.B., & McKinnon, A. (1982). A survey of classroom teachers of the emotionally disturbed: Attrition and burnout

factors. Behavior Disorders, 8, 41–49.Lidz, C.S. (1991). Foundations of dynamic assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.Lopez, E. (1995). Working with bilingual children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology–

III. (pp. 1111–1122). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: What is it and why do we do it? In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based

measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: The Guilford Press.


McGrew, K.S., & Flanagan, D.P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): GS-GC cross battery assessment.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Miller, S.A. (1988). Parents’ beliefs about children’s cognitive development. Child Development, 59, 259–285.Myers, C.L., McBride, S.L., & Peterson, C.A. (1996). Transdisciplinary, play-based assessment in early childhood special

education: An examination of social validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 102–126.Naglieri, J.A. (1985). Matrix analogies test: Expanded form. USA: The Psychological Corporation.National Association of School Psychologists. (1985). Principles for professional ethics. Washington, DC: Author.National Education Association. (1996). National directory of successful strategies for the recruiting and retention of minor-

ity teachers. Washington, DC: Author.National Education Association. (1997). Focus on Hispanics: Ethnic report. Washington, DC: Author.Oller, J.W., Jr., & Damico, J.S. (1991). Theoretical considerations in the assessment of limited English proficient students. In

E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 77–110), Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

O’Malley, J.M. (1992). Response to Jack Damico’s presentation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number EDU 349815).

Ovando, C., & Collier, V. (1985). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in a multicultural context. New York: McGrawHill.

Padilla, A.M., & Medina, A. (1996). Cross-cultural sensitivity in assessment: Using tests in culturally appropriate ways. InL.A. Suzuki, P.J. Meller, & J.P. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical psychological, andeducational applications (pp. 3–28). San Francisco: Josey-Bass, Inc.

Reynolds, C.R., & Kaiser, S.M. (1990). Test bias in psychological assessment. In T.B. Gutkin & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Thehandbook of school psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 487–525). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Roseberry-McKibbon, C. (1994). Assessment and intervention for children with limited English proficiency and languagedisorders. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 3, 77–87.

Sattler, J.M. (1992). Assessment of ethnic minority children. In J.M. Sattler (Ed.), Assessment of children (3rd ed.; pp. 563–596). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher Inc.

Schiff-Meyers, N.B. (1992). Considering arrested language development and language loss in the assessment of second lan-guage learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 3, 28–33.

Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools, 499 F. 2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1975) (under Title VI).Shinn, M. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.Shinn, M.R., & Baker, S.K. (1996). The use of curriculum-based measurement with diverse learners. In L.A. Suzuki, P.J.

Meller, & J.P. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical psychological, and educational appli-cations (pp. 179–222), San Francisco: Josey-Bass, Inc., Publishers.

Tanner-Halverson, P., Burden, T., & Sabers, D. (1993). WISC-III normative data for Tohono O’odham Native American chil-dren. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment: WISC-III Monograph, 125–133.

Valencia, R.R., & Rankin, R.J. (1988). Evidence of bias in predictive validity on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Chil-dren in samples of Anglo and Mexican American children. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 257–263.

Weiss, L.G., Prifiteria, A., & Roid, G. (1993). The WISC-III and the fairness of predicting achievement across ethnic and gen-der groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment: WISC-III Monograph, 35–42.

Weschler, D. (1974). Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children–Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Weschler, D. (1991). Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children–III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Westby, C.E., Dominguez, M.S., & Oetter, P. (1996). A performance/competence model of observational assessment. Lan-

guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 27, 144–156.Willig, A.C., & Ortiz, A.A. (1991). The non biased individualized educational program: Linking assessment to instruction.

In E.V. Hamayan & J.S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 281–302), Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R.M. (1997). Occupational stress and burn out among special educators: A review of the litera-ture. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346.

Worthington, G.B., & Bening, M.E. (1988). Use of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children in predicting achievementamong students referred for special education services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 370–374.


Documents

Assessment and intervention practices with second-language learners among school psychologists