Quantifying the “Degree of Linguistic Demand” in Spoken Intelligence Test Directions

Abstract

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.

The Influences of Linguistic Demand and Cultural Loading on Cognitive Test Scores

“…Although this difference should not be attributed to psychometric bias, it does support the consideration on the Linguistic Demand of different tests within a cognitive battery and how this will affect scores. The Linguistic Demand of the test directions also vary a great deal in their complexity and length from one test to another for the WJ-III battery (Cormier, McGrew, & Evans, 2011). The Linguistic Demand of a test implies that the language demands of test items will interact with a number of factors such as (a) the age at which the test-taker learned English; (b) the linguistic background of the individual relative to those against which he or she is compared; and (c) the amount and quality of the exposure to English (Ochoa & Dynga, 2005).…”

“…In other words, as students get older, they are likely to be exposed to a greater number of items with increasing difficulty, given the structure of the WJ-III COG and its use of ceiling rules to guide test administration. These results can be compared to those found in Cormier, McGrew, and Evans (2011), where only the Linguistic Demand of test directions was considered. Taken together, the results of these two studies suggest that certain tests, particularly those classified as high in Linguistic Demand, should be used with caution when testing CLD students with characteristics that may attenuate their performance.…”

“…Taken together, the results of these two studies suggest that certain tests, particularly those classified as high in Linguistic Demand, should be used with caution when testing CLD students with characteristics that may attenuate their performance. For example, those categorized as high only in Linguistic Demand in Cormier et al (2011)…”

Lääkärin työtilanteiden kielellisen vaativuuden määrittäminen

“…kuitenkin Byrnes, 2002b). Kielenopetuksessa sen sijaan on tunnettua, että harjoitustehtävien ominaisuudet voivat nostaa kielellistä vaatimustasoa tai edellyttää laadultaan erilaista kielitaitoa (Skehan, 1996;Robinson, 2001;Iwashita, McNamara & Elder, 2001;Cormier, McGrew & Evans, 2011). Esimerkiksi kompleksinen tehtävä tuottaa sujuvuudeltaan heikompaa mutta toisaalta leksikaalisesti rikkaampaa kieltä kuin yksinkertainen tehtävä (Robinson, 2001, s. 52).…”

Special considerations with response to intervention and instruction for students with diverse backgrounds

“…Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) provide a very comprehensive and detailed manual for assessing CLD children, which specifies the importance of assessment in both languages with ELs, different procedures to use depending on the combinations of proficiency in each language, considerations for cultural loading and linguistic demands for commonly administered norm‐referenced measures and individual subtests, measuring acculturation, and much more for readers who desire additional information on psychoeducational assessments. However, two recent studies (Cormier, McGrew, & Evans, 2011; Kranzler, Flores, & Coady, 2010) raise important questions about the validity and use of the cross battery approach and the Culture‐Language Interpretive Matrices, relegating the cornerstone of Rhodes et al's (2005) approach into an area of promise needing further empirical validation.…”