4.0 Article

The BNT-15 provides an accurate measure of English proficiency in cognitively intact bilinguals - a study in cross-cultural assessment

期刊

APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY-ADULT
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 351-363

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2020.1760277

关键词

Cross-cultural assessment; Boston Naming Test; bilingualism; limited English proficiency; cognitive testing; performance validity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the BNT-15 was highly accurate in identifying LEP status. Participants with LEP performed poorly on multiple cognitive tests and had an increased risk of failing performance validity tests. Previously established validity cutoffs had low specificity among participants with LEP.
This study was designed to replicate earlier reports of the utility of the Boston Naming Test - Short Form (BNT-15) as an index of limited English proficiency (LEP). Twenty-eight English-Arabic bilingual student volunteers were administered the BNT-15 as part of a brief battery of cognitive tests. The majority (23) were women, and half had LEP. Mean age was 21.1 years. The BNT-15 was an excellent psychometric marker of LEP status (area under the curve: .990-.995). Participants with LEP underperformed on several cognitive measures (verbal comprehension, visuomotor processing speed, single word reading, and performance validity tests). Although no participant with LEP failed the accuracy cutoff on the Word Choice Test, 35.7% of them failed the time cutoff. Overall, LEP was associated with an increased risk of failing performance validity tests. Previously published BNT-15 validity cutoffs had unacceptably low specificity (.33-.52) among participants with LEP. The BNT-15 has the potential to serve as a quick and effective objective measure of LEP. Students with LEP may need academic accommodations to compensate for slower test completion time. Likewise, LEP status should be considered for exemption from failing performance validity tests to protect against false positive errors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据