- Email: [email protected]
ELPS)
R e v i e w s o f School Psychological Materials
193
There is no consistency in style; for example, in the first five chapters the authors refer to themselves in the plural form; however, in chapter six, one of the authors "breaks into the first person singular in order to relieve a growing sense of constrictions brought on by the researcher who binds him with facts and figures" (p. 79). Consistency is also lacking in documentation; for example, when Erickson's emphasis on crisis of identity during adolescence is cited, no reference is provided t,p. 15). The book has an incomplete index. For example, the names of two of the three authors of the book do not appear in the index, and the entry for the name of the author who is listed does not include all the pages in which his name has appeared in the text. It seems clear that the book was rushed into publication before adequate editing and reviewing. All in all, this reviewer believes the target readers (practitioner-researchers) would have benefited more from this work had it not been for these shortcomings, and the book could have contributed more in showing the values of action-research in community about one of the most pressing social problems. M. Ebrahim Fakouri Indiana State University
Spanish/English Language Performance Screening (S/ELPS). Monterey, Ca.: CTB/McGrawHill, 1976. Price: $40.00. Various language dominance measures currently are available (Oakland, 1977; Silverman. Noa, & Russell, 1976), almost all of which have been developed in the last 10 years. When selecting an instrument to assess language abilities of children with limited English-speaking ability, one typically considers such factors as a measure's psychometric characteristics, cost involved in purchasing and using the scale, and the age range for which the test is appropriate. Additional questions considered in evaluating tests include: Is the information needed primarily to classify children or to develop educational programs for them? Which linguistic elements (e.g., lexical, syntactical, phonological) should a test of this nature include? Are norms available and are they based on monolingual English-speaking, bilingual, or monolingual Spanish-speaking children? Should the instrument assess language dominance or proficiency? Even if one is able to find an adequate measure, it is important to base decisions on multiple kinds of information from various sources. Public Law 94-142 and the Lau decision serve to reinforce the growing practice of assessing the language strength and preferences of children with limited English-speaking ability. Determining their language dominance is important to qualifying for Title VI programs, to administering other tests, and to assessing changes in language that occur through special programs. The S/ELPS is designed for these purposes. Its five major categories are consistent with those suggested in the Lau remedy. The S/ELPS was designed to be used by bilingual classroom teachers (or aides) in order to determine whether Spanish or English language is stronger or more dominant among four- and five-year old children. The test kit includes an examiner's handbook, 80 one-page Spanish/English protocols, two boxes of small objects, and four multicolored pictures; the small objects and pictures are used to elicit English and Spanish. Administration and Scoring. The S/ELPS contains two parts: the Spanish part (which is administered first) and the English part. Both parts sample five language abilities in Spanish and English in the following order: Answering three Questions (e.g., How old are you?), Naming six Objects (e.g., TAZA), Following two Directions (e.g., Put the scissors in the box.). Describing five Objects (e.g., PLATO), and Describing four Pictures. Immediately following the administration (time estimated to be 15 minutes), the examiner scores the children's responses by noting first their quantity and then their quality. That is, first a judgment is made as to whether the children's responses to each of the Spanish and English parts are mostly in Spanish, mostly in English, ate a blend of the two, or are too few to judge. Then the quality of the responses is determined by judging whether the responses are more appropriate to the Spanish part, to the English part, or an: approximately equal between both pans. Judgments from these two pans then are used to categorize the children as being Spanish Dominant, Predominantly Spanish, Bilingual, Predominantly English, or English Dominant. The sixth category, Undetermined, is for children whose language sample is insufficient for judging which language is dominant.
194
Journal o f School Psychology
No standardized norms are available. The child's performance is evaluated against absolute standards, and an idiographic analysis is made of his or her performance in Spanish and English. Test Development and Psychometric Characteristics. The manual presents brief information about the test's development. Additional information is contained in a Summary Technical Report: Spanish/English Language Performance Screening (Evans, 1977). Briefly summarizing, Osgood's (1957) information processing model formed the conceptual basis of the test. Criteria for item selection and validation are provided. The S/ELPS was field tested and validated on more than 500 four- and five-year-old children. The Spanish used in the test was evaluated by competent judges to he suitable for Puerto Rican, Cuban American, and Mexican American children. Test-retest reliabifities over the entire scale range from .74 to 1.00 (with the median in the high 80s); interrater reliability reportedly is in the high 90s. The test-retest reliability estimates of examiners and teachers in comparing the quality of children's responses (e.g., more responses to Spanish, to English, or equal number of responses) are very low (~ .20). However, there is substantial agreement between independent judges in categorizing students into one of the five language dominance groups. Also, correlations between S/ELPS language categories and teacher's judgments of language preference generally are in the mid to high 80s. Evaluation. Costs for purchasing the scale are moderate to high. However, relatively short administration time (15 minutes) and ease of administration and scoring contribute to its attractiveness. The test's unannounced author (Dr. Joyce Evans), the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, and CTB/McGraw-Hill are to be commended for conducting various field studies with the S/ELPS and reporting the data in a complete and understandable form. The reliability estimates (with the exception of one a~a) are high and the validity data useful in deciding bow the S/ELPS can and cannot he used appropriately. The S/ELPS has a restrictive range of use: roughly for children in grades 1-3. Another possible restriction pertains to the limited degree of oral language elicited by the test. On Following Directions, the child says nothing. On Answering Questions and Naming Objects, one-word responses are acceptable. While more language is elicited when children are asked to Describe five common Objects in Spanish and English, the elaboration still is limited and restricted. A fifth subtest, Describing Pictures, does permit children to demonstrate their expressive abilities in the least restricted way by asking them to tell what the picture is about. Persons interested in assessment of both receptive andexpressive language abilities may find the S/ELPS useful. Those who are interested primarily in expressive language abilities will want to look elsewhere for a language dominance measure. Possible problems exist in scoring the language data. The instrument provides virtually no guidelines or criteria for judging the quantity or quality of responses or for contrasting English and Spanish language samples. Extensive inservice training should he provided to teachers and aides should the S/ELPS be selected for use. Thomas Oakland The University of Texas at Austin REFERENCES Evans, J. Summary technical report: Spanish~English language performance screening. Austin, Tx.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1977. Oakland, T. Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977. Osgood, C. E. A behavioristic analysis. In Contemporary approaches to cognition. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Silverman, R., Noa, J., & Russell, R. Oral language tests for bilingual students. Portland, Or.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1976.
193
There is no consistency in style; for example, in the first five chapters the authors refer to themselves in the plural form; however, in chapter six, one of the authors "breaks into the first person singular in order to relieve a growing sense of constrictions brought on by the researcher who binds him with facts and figures" (p. 79). Consistency is also lacking in documentation; for example, when Erickson's emphasis on crisis of identity during adolescence is cited, no reference is provided t,p. 15). The book has an incomplete index. For example, the names of two of the three authors of the book do not appear in the index, and the entry for the name of the author who is listed does not include all the pages in which his name has appeared in the text. It seems clear that the book was rushed into publication before adequate editing and reviewing. All in all, this reviewer believes the target readers (practitioner-researchers) would have benefited more from this work had it not been for these shortcomings, and the book could have contributed more in showing the values of action-research in community about one of the most pressing social problems. M. Ebrahim Fakouri Indiana State University
Spanish/English Language Performance Screening (S/ELPS). Monterey, Ca.: CTB/McGrawHill, 1976. Price: $40.00. Various language dominance measures currently are available (Oakland, 1977; Silverman. Noa, & Russell, 1976), almost all of which have been developed in the last 10 years. When selecting an instrument to assess language abilities of children with limited English-speaking ability, one typically considers such factors as a measure's psychometric characteristics, cost involved in purchasing and using the scale, and the age range for which the test is appropriate. Additional questions considered in evaluating tests include: Is the information needed primarily to classify children or to develop educational programs for them? Which linguistic elements (e.g., lexical, syntactical, phonological) should a test of this nature include? Are norms available and are they based on monolingual English-speaking, bilingual, or monolingual Spanish-speaking children? Should the instrument assess language dominance or proficiency? Even if one is able to find an adequate measure, it is important to base decisions on multiple kinds of information from various sources. Public Law 94-142 and the Lau decision serve to reinforce the growing practice of assessing the language strength and preferences of children with limited English-speaking ability. Determining their language dominance is important to qualifying for Title VI programs, to administering other tests, and to assessing changes in language that occur through special programs. The S/ELPS is designed for these purposes. Its five major categories are consistent with those suggested in the Lau remedy. The S/ELPS was designed to be used by bilingual classroom teachers (or aides) in order to determine whether Spanish or English language is stronger or more dominant among four- and five-year old children. The test kit includes an examiner's handbook, 80 one-page Spanish/English protocols, two boxes of small objects, and four multicolored pictures; the small objects and pictures are used to elicit English and Spanish. Administration and Scoring. The S/ELPS contains two parts: the Spanish part (which is administered first) and the English part. Both parts sample five language abilities in Spanish and English in the following order: Answering three Questions (e.g., How old are you?), Naming six Objects (e.g., TAZA), Following two Directions (e.g., Put the scissors in the box.). Describing five Objects (e.g., PLATO), and Describing four Pictures. Immediately following the administration (time estimated to be 15 minutes), the examiner scores the children's responses by noting first their quantity and then their quality. That is, first a judgment is made as to whether the children's responses to each of the Spanish and English parts are mostly in Spanish, mostly in English, ate a blend of the two, or are too few to judge. Then the quality of the responses is determined by judging whether the responses are more appropriate to the Spanish part, to the English part, or an: approximately equal between both pans. Judgments from these two pans then are used to categorize the children as being Spanish Dominant, Predominantly Spanish, Bilingual, Predominantly English, or English Dominant. The sixth category, Undetermined, is for children whose language sample is insufficient for judging which language is dominant.
194
Journal o f School Psychology
No standardized norms are available. The child's performance is evaluated against absolute standards, and an idiographic analysis is made of his or her performance in Spanish and English. Test Development and Psychometric Characteristics. The manual presents brief information about the test's development. Additional information is contained in a Summary Technical Report: Spanish/English Language Performance Screening (Evans, 1977). Briefly summarizing, Osgood's (1957) information processing model formed the conceptual basis of the test. Criteria for item selection and validation are provided. The S/ELPS was field tested and validated on more than 500 four- and five-year-old children. The Spanish used in the test was evaluated by competent judges to he suitable for Puerto Rican, Cuban American, and Mexican American children. Test-retest reliabifities over the entire scale range from .74 to 1.00 (with the median in the high 80s); interrater reliability reportedly is in the high 90s. The test-retest reliability estimates of examiners and teachers in comparing the quality of children's responses (e.g., more responses to Spanish, to English, or equal number of responses) are very low (~ .20). However, there is substantial agreement between independent judges in categorizing students into one of the five language dominance groups. Also, correlations between S/ELPS language categories and teacher's judgments of language preference generally are in the mid to high 80s. Evaluation. Costs for purchasing the scale are moderate to high. However, relatively short administration time (15 minutes) and ease of administration and scoring contribute to its attractiveness. The test's unannounced author (Dr. Joyce Evans), the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, and CTB/McGraw-Hill are to be commended for conducting various field studies with the S/ELPS and reporting the data in a complete and understandable form. The reliability estimates (with the exception of one a~a) are high and the validity data useful in deciding bow the S/ELPS can and cannot he used appropriately. The S/ELPS has a restrictive range of use: roughly for children in grades 1-3. Another possible restriction pertains to the limited degree of oral language elicited by the test. On Following Directions, the child says nothing. On Answering Questions and Naming Objects, one-word responses are acceptable. While more language is elicited when children are asked to Describe five common Objects in Spanish and English, the elaboration still is limited and restricted. A fifth subtest, Describing Pictures, does permit children to demonstrate their expressive abilities in the least restricted way by asking them to tell what the picture is about. Persons interested in assessment of both receptive andexpressive language abilities may find the S/ELPS useful. Those who are interested primarily in expressive language abilities will want to look elsewhere for a language dominance measure. Possible problems exist in scoring the language data. The instrument provides virtually no guidelines or criteria for judging the quantity or quality of responses or for contrasting English and Spanish language samples. Extensive inservice training should he provided to teachers and aides should the S/ELPS be selected for use. Thomas Oakland The University of Texas at Austin REFERENCES Evans, J. Summary technical report: Spanish~English language performance screening. Austin, Tx.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1977. Oakland, T. Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977. Osgood, C. E. A behavioristic analysis. In Contemporary approaches to cognition. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Silverman, R., Noa, J., & Russell, R. Oral language tests for bilingual students. Portland, Or.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1976.