Assessing language background and experiences among heritage bilinguals

The language backgrounds and experiences of bilinguals have been primarily characterized using self-report questionnaires and laboratory tasks, although each of these assessments have their strengths and weaknesses. The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR), an audio recording device, has recently become more prominent as a method of assessing real-world language use. We investigated the relationships among these three assessment tools, to understand the shared variance in how these measures evaluated various aspects of the bilingual experience. Participants were 60 Southern California heritage bilingual college students who spoke a variety of heritage languages and began to learn English between the ages of 0-to 12-years. Participants completed both self-report and laboratory-based measures of language proficiency and use, and they wore the EAR for 4  days to capture representative samples of their day-to-day heritage language (HL) use. The results indicated that self-reported HL use and English age of acquisition were significant predictors of real-world language use as measured by the EAR. In addition, self-reported HL proficiency and laboratory-based HL proficiency, as measured by verbal fluency, were mutually predictive. While some variability was shared across different assessments, ultimately, none of the measures correlated strongly and each measure captured unique information about the heritage bilingual language experience, highlighting the dissociation between language experience measured at a single point in time and an accumulated life history with a heritage language. These findings may provide guidance for bilingualism researchers about which assessment tool, or combination of tools, may be best for their specific research questions.

How "proficient" is proficient? Bilingual listeners' recognition of English words in noise

PURPOSE

Shi (2011, 2013) obtained sensitivity/specificity measures of bilingual listeners' English and relative proficiency ratings as the predictor of English word recognition in quiet. The current study investigated how relative proficiency predicted word recognition in noise.

METHOD

Forty-two monolingual and 168 bilingual normal-hearing listeners were included. Bilingual listeners rated their proficiency in listening, speaking, and reading in English and in the other language using an 11-point scale. Listeners were presented with 50 English monosyllabic words in quiet at 45 dB HL and in multitalker babble with a signal-to-noise ratio of +6 and 0 dB.

RESULTS

Data in quiet confirmed Shi's (2013) finding that relative proficiency with or without dominance predicted well whether bilinguals performed on par with the monolingual norm. Predicting the outcome was difficult for the 2 noise conditions. To identify bilinguals whose performance fell below the normative range, dominance per se or a combination of dominance and average relative proficiency rating yielded the best sensitivity/specificity and summary measures, including Youden's index.

CONCLUSION

Bilinguals' word recognition is more difficult to predict in noise than in quiet; however, proficiency and dominance variables can predict reasonably well whether bilinguals may perform at a monolingual normative level.

The effect of visual cues on scoring of clinical word-recognition tests

PURPOSE

During routine clinical speech assessment, if the person being tested were to write down what he or she heard, it would not always match what the audiologist heard while scoring the listener's vocal responses (Nelson & Chaiklin, 1970). This study demonstrated a method to assess examiner accuracy and whether speechreading cues reduce writedown-talkback errors.

METHOD

Examiners were divided into 3 categories: normal hearing native speakers of English, normal hearing nonnative speakers of English, and native speakers with hearing loss. Each examiner assessed 4 normal-hearing listeners. Two NU-6 lists were presented to each listener; one was scored without visual cues and one with visual cues. Lists were presented at 50 dB HL in the presence of speech noise at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

RESULTS

Results analyzed by percentage of correct phonemes and words revealed fewer writedown-talkback discrepancies for all 3 examiner groups when visual cues were added, with a substantial improvement for examiners with hearing loss.

CONCLUSION

The finding of errors between talkback versus writedown scoring of lists for all of the examiners, even with visual cues, suggests a need for modification of the clinical word-recognition procedure for applications that potentially affect diagnosis, rehabilitation choices, or financial compensation.

Validating models of clinical word recognition tests for spanish/english bilinguals

PURPOSE

Shi and Sánchez (2010) developed models to predict the optimal test language for evaluating Spanish/English (S/E) bilinguals' word recognition. The current study intended to validate their conclusions in a separate bilingual listener sample.

METHOD

Seventy normal-hearing S/E bilinguals varying in language profile were included. Participants were presented with English monosyllabic and Spanish bisyllabic words in quiet and in speech-spectrum noise (+6 and 0 dB SNR). Relative success on the 2 tests was indicated by the difference in z score for each test.

RESULTS

The current group of participants was comparable to participants in Shi and Sánchez (2010) in regard to their language background and test performance. Previously developed models fit current data well. Age of English acquisition (AOAE) yielded more consistent models across test conditions than language dominance (LD). New models incorporating average proficiency rating (across domains) and relative proficiency rating (across languages) yielded best prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Shi and Sánchez's (2010) models incorporating key linguistic variables (AOAE, LD, and average/relative proficiency ratings) can help clinicians predict bilingual clients' relative success in word recognition in Spanish versus English. These models are appropriate for current clinical work with S/E bilinguals in metropolitan areas similar to New York City.

Speech audiometry and Spanish-English bilinguals: challenges in clinical practice

PURPOSE

The Spanish-English bilingual population has been on a steady rise in the United States and is projected to continue to grow. Speech audiometry, a key component of hearing care, must be customized for this linguistically unique and diverse population.

METHOD

The tutorial summarizes recent findings concerning Spanish-English bilinguals' performance on English and Spanish speech audiometric tests in the context of the psychometric properties of the tests and the language and dialect profile of the individual (language status, history, stability, competency, and use). The tutorial also provides arguments for evaluating bilingual clients in Spanish, in English, or in both languages, which may serve as rationales in support of varied bilingual clinical practices. Last, the tutorial provides information regarding Spanish speech audiometry, including available tests, issues that clinicians may encounter when administering them, and dialectal consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

It is a challenge as well as an opportunity for clinicians to expand service to the Spanish-English bilingual community. Understanding the characteristics of the individual and the test is essential for ensuring quality services to the bilingual client.