Psychological Assessment of English Language Learners and/or Bilingual Students: An Investigation of School Psychologists' Current Practices

• Published in: Journal of psychoeducational assessment 2004-09, Vol.22 (3), p.185-208
• Main Authors: Ochoa, Salvador Hector, Riccio, Cynthia, Jimenez, Sandra, de Alba, Roman Garcia, Sines, Marylyn
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bilingual Students; Educational Practices; Emotional Disturbances; English (Second Language); Investigations; Limited English Speaking; Mexican Americans; Operations Research; Professional Associations; Psychological Evaluation; Questionnaires; Rating Scales; School Psychologists; Second Language Learning
• ISSN: 0734-2829; 1557-5144
• DOI: 10.1177/073428290402200301

This study examined critical components of the assessment procedures school psychologists use when conducting evaluations for emotional disturbance with students who are English language learners (ELLs). A random sample of 1,500 members of NASP from 12 states with high limited English proficient populations was surveyed. A total of 439 respondents (29.27%) returned the survey. Only 223 of the respondents indicated that they had assessed ELLs. The results indicate that school psychologists are assessing ELLs from many different language groups, Spanish being the most common language group assessed. A significant number of school psychologists used interpreters when assessing ELLs. The following assessment methods were employed by over 90% of the respondents: behavioral observation, child interview, teacher interview, and parent interview. These four methods were judged to be very helpful. The most frequently used measures included Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test (75.8%), Draw-A-Person (71.7%), House-Tree-Person (58.4%), Kinetic Family Drawing (55.3%), and Generic Sentence Completion Forms (52.5%). The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA), all BASC measures (PRS in English and Spanish, TRS, SRP, SDH, and SOS), Million, and Haak Sentence Completion obtained the highest mean ratings for level of helpfulness. Implications of results with respect to professional standards and recommended practices are discussed.