The Bilingual Verbal Abilities Tests: A Critical Review

1
The Bilingual Verbal Abilities TestsA Critical
Review
B V A T

• Luz BerkmenTexas AM UniversitySpring 2002

2
Language proficiency testing is a complex
undertaking that continues to stir much debate by
language researchers and test developers.
Major differences of opinion concern the exact
nature of language proficiency and how to best
assess it. Educators are pressed into choosing
and administering OLPT to make programmatic
decisions about limited English proficient
students. (Del Vecchio
Guerrero, 1995)
R E S E A R C H
3
AUTHORS

• Ana F. Muñoz-SandovalResearcher/Test Developer
• Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey (1993)
• Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Rev. Span.
  Form 95
• Batería Woodcock-Muñoz Pruebas de habilidad
  cognitiva-Rev. 96
• Batería Woodcock-Muñoz Pruebas de
  aprovechamiento-Rev. 96
• Criselda G. Alvarado Texas Educator/Diagnostician
  /Consultant
• Special Education
• Educational Assessment
• Bilingual Education
• Mary L. Ruef Researcher/Test Developer
• Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Rev.
  84-87, 89
• 2 Woodcock-Muñoz Batteries and the Language
  Survey
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive Manual, 1998)

4
AUTHORS

• Jim CumminsEducator/Researcher/Theorists
• Bilingualism and Special Education. Issues in
  Assessment Pedagogy 84
• Bilingualism in Education Aspects of Theory,
  Research Practice 86
• Miinority Education From Shame to Struggle 88
• Empowering Miinority Students 89
• Brave New Schools Challenging Cultural
  Illiteracy through Global Learning Networks 95
• Negotiating Identities Education for Empowerment
  in a Diverse Society 96
• Scott Foresman ESL Accelerating English
  Language Learning Gr. 1-8 96
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive
  Manual, 1998)

Cont.
Additional publications since 96
5
OPTIONS

• 1. Administer the usual diagnostic battery but
  take account of students bilingual background in
  interpreting the test profile.
• 2. Delay assessment in the hope that the
  students poor academic performance is the result
  of normal second language development.
• 3. Administer only nonverbal measures.
• 4. Administer first language assessment.
• 
  
  (Cummins., 2001)

6

• To provide a standardized and psychometrically
  sound procedure for combining verbal-cognitive L1
  and L2 assessment in the same instrument.
• Represents an estimate of common underlying
  proficiency (Cummins, 1984,1996).
• Combined with WJ-R Tests of Achievement, it
  provides a system for determining if
  discrepancies exist between verbal ability and
  achievement.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive
  Manual, 1998)

R A T I O N A L E
7
LANGUAGES

• Arabic
• Chinese (Simplified and Traditional)
• French
• German
• Haitian-Creole
• Hindi
• Hmong (Spring 2000)
• Italian
• Japanese
• Korean
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Russian
• Spanish
• Turkish
• Vietnamese
• (BVAT Comprehensive
  Manual, 1998)

English to
8
BVAT Tests and Clusters
C O N T E N T
1. Picture Vocabulary - 58 items 2A. Oral
Vocabulary Synonyms - 20 items 2B. Oral
Vocabulary Antonyms - 20 items 3. Verbal
Analogies - 35 items Same tests appear in WJ-R
Tests of Cognitive Ability and in the Woodcock
Language Proficiency Battery-R.

(BVAT Comprehensive
Manual, 1998)
9
B V A T U S E S
1. Bilingual Education Entry/Exit 2. Program
Placement and Planning Bilingual
Programs/Two-Way ESL G/T Programs Special
Education 3. Clinical Assessment 4. Research
Program Evaluation

(BVAT Comprehensive Manual, 1998)
10
PROCEDURES

• No time limit. Approximately 30 minutes
• Ages 5 - 90 years old
• Materials needed Easel Test Book and Test Record
  
• Modifications made for visual impairment and
  physical disabilities
• Administered individually
• Administered by a trained bilingual Primary
  Examiner or by a Primary/Ancillary Team
• Items administered in English, then missed items
  are administered in the other language.
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive Manual,
  1998)

11
SCORING

• Basal and Ceiling Rules in English
• No Basal Rule in the other Language
• Some items not administered in other languages
• Item Scores 0 or 1
• English Raw Score and Gain Score
• Scoring and Reporting Program computes this
  information and gives an individual report.
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive Manual, 1998)

12
INTERPRETATION

• Language Exposure and Use Questionnaire
• Age Equivalent Clinical Settings or for adults
• Grade Equivalent School-based decisions
• CALP Level for English Language Proficiency
• Advanced, Fluent, Limited, Very Limited, and
  Negligible
• Percentile Ranks
• Standard Score
• 
  
• WJ-R ACH Aptitude/Achievement Discrepancies
• Relative Proficiency Index
• Instructional Zone
• 
  (BVAT Comprehensive Manual, 1998)

13
RELIABILITYVALIDITY

• Internal consistency reliability for the three
  BVAT subtests .70-.97
• Reliability for the ELP scores .91-.99
• Alternate form alternate procedure reliabilities
  (group of 525 students .78-.90 with median .84
• Reliability data for bilingual administrators
  available only for Spanish administrations to
  school children.
• No data addressed comparability of translated
  scripts.
• Authors stated that skills tested, stimuli given
  and response modes gave the measure content
  validity but no expert opinions or literature
  based definitions of verbal ability supported
  statement.
• FIVE CONCURRENT STUDIES CORRELATION FINDINGS
• ELP and language proficiency scores .76 above
• ELP and achievement scores .23-.86 wide range
  across grade levels
• ELP and cognitive ability .52-.78
• 
  (Wilkinson Ortiz,
  2000)

14
ADVANTAGES

• Available in 16 languages
• Includes procedures for translating the
  instrument into other languages
• Well-developed and easy to follow Comprehensive
  Manual
• Overview
• Administration Procedures
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures
• Importance of training examiners and discusses
  Primary/Ancillary Team testing
• Easy to administer and can be done quickly
• Software provides narrative report
  ( Wilkinson Ortiz, 2000)
• First attempt to create a standardized test for
  assessing the common underlying proficiency
  (Cummings) in utilizing cognitive-academic
  language.
• Provides holistic overall estimate of a
  bilingual childs cognitive language mastery
• Effective (although not perfect!) instrument in
  bilingual assessment.
• 
  
  (Gindis, 1999)
• Cummins (2001) recommends clinical and
  classroom-based uses for the BVAT.

15
DISADVANTAGES

• Very little psychometric information based on
  bilingual administrations availablecaution used
  when making educational decisions
• Further research needed to establish reliability
  and validity across ages, levels of proficiency,
  and to determining whether norms established for
  monolingual English speaking individuals are
  appropriated for bilingual populations
• 
  (Wilkinson
  Ortiz, 2000)
• Literary skills remain beyond the scope of the
  test
• Content was too narrow to make instructional
  decisions
• Item-by-item translation may not be acceptable to
  bilingual educators due to regional variations
  Synonym/Antonym sections
• Translations effect level of difficulty in the
  different languages (deleted items)
• Picture vocabulary is the weakest and most
  culturally biased (men panning for gold)
• Hand-scoring not available, assumes that computer
  access available
• Caution Report should be used only as a
  template-norming problems
• 
  
  (Gindis, 1999)
• Cummins (2001)contends that considerably more
  research and practical experience are required to
  assess the usefulness of the BVAT.

16
REFLECTIONS

• Initially disappointed with the test. Although it
  required more thought processing, it did not
  require a lot of oral production.
• Results were given only in English. No Spanish
  score was given. Needed for documentation and
  instructional planning.
• Need to purchase WJ-R ACH test to get
  aptitude/achievement discrepancies.
• Information on language use and exposure
  designated in , and based on if known.
• Still need to have a primary/ancillary tester who
  speaks the other language.

17
REFLECTIONS

• This test would be very useful in ESL programs
  because it comes in a variety of languages and is
  very easy to administer.
• The Comprehensive Manual is very thorough and
  goes into great detail in the training aspects.
  It even makes mention of sensitivity to
  observations of immaturity, hyperactivity, lack
  of motivation, and speech defects.
• The administrator my calculate verbal abilities
  even if a student speaks two non-English
  languages.
• In combination with WJ-R ACH test, it will
  provide an indication of potential English
  proficiency and academic performance
• It can be used as another measure, of several
  multiple-measures, that provide the teacher, the
  LPAC committee and the M-TEAM/ TAP TEAM with
  information on students who are being considered
  for special services.

18
REFERENCES

• Cummins, J. (2001). Assessment and intervention
  with culturally and linguistically diverse
  learners. In S. R. Hurley J. V. Tinajero,
  Literacy assessment of second language learners
  (pp. 115-129). Boston Allyn and Bacon.
• Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special
  education Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
  Clevedon, England Multilingual Matters.
• Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities
  Education in enpowerment in a diverse society.
  Los Angeles CABE.
• Del Vecchio, A. Guerrero, M. (1995). Handbook
  of English language proficiency tests. Retrieved
  March 14, 2002, from http//www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscp
  ubs/eacwest5/elptest.htm
• Gindis, B. (1999). A review of the Bilingual
  Verbal Abilities Tests (BVAT) A breakthrough in
  bilingual assessment-or is it? Communique, 27,
  26-27. Retrieved February 5, 2002, from
  http//www.bgcenter.com/BVATReview.htm
• Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., Cummins, J., Alvarado, C.
  G., Ruef, M. L. (1998). Bilingual verbal
  abilities test Comprehensive manual. Itasca,
  IL The Riverside Publishing Company.
• Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. (2000, Fall). Test
  review The bilingual verbal abilities tests
  (BVAT). Communique, 28, 2-3. Retrieved April 7,
  2002, from http//www.nku.edu/walkerst/ceds.htm