Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

ISSN: 2327-9095 (Print) 2327-9109 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hapn21

Verbal in bilinguals when measured in L1 and L2

Alfredo Ardila, Alexandra Lopez-Recio, Ariel Sakowitz, Estefania Sanchez & Stephanie Sarmiento

To cite this article: Alfredo Ardila, Alexandra Lopez-Recio, Ariel Sakowitz, Estefania Sanchez & Stephanie Sarmiento (2018): Verbal intelligence in bilinguals when measured in L1 and L2, Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2018.1448819 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1448819

Published online: 04 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hapn21 APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: ADULT https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1448819

none defined Verbal intelligence in bilinguals when measured in L1 and L2 Alfredo Ardila, Alexandra Lopez-Recio, Ariel Sakowitz, Estefania Sanchez and Stephanie Sarmiento Sciences and Disorders, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This study was aimed at studying the Verbal IQ in two groups of Spanish/English bilinguals: ; Spanish/English simultaneous and early sequential bilinguals. 48 Spanish/English bilinguals born in the U.S. or Latin bilingualism; verbal intelli- American countries but moving to United States before the age of 10 were selected. The verbal gence; ; Wechsler subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (English and Spanish) – Third Edition (WAIS-III) Adult Intelligence Scale was administered. Overall, performance was significantly better in English for both groups of bilinguals. Verbal IQ difference when tested in Spanish and English was about one standard deviation higher in English for simultaneous bilinguals, and about half standard deviation for early sequential bilinguals. In both groups, Verbal IQ in English was about 100; considering the level of education of our sample (bachelor degree, on average), it can be assumed that Verbal IQ in English was lower than expected, suggesting that bilinguals may be penalized even when evaluated in the dominant .

Introduction Diverse bilingualism advantages have been suggested during recent years, particularly with regard to Controversy has surrounded the topic of cognition executive functioning (e.g., Calvo & Bialystok, 2014; measurement in a person’s native language (L1) and Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Olsen et al., 2015; Sorge, the second language (L2) (Mindt et al., 2008; Pham, Toplak, & Bialystok, 2017). Marian, Faroqi-Shah, Castro-Olivo, Chun, & Goforth, 2017). Some authors Kaushanskaya, Blumenfeld, and Sheng (2009) observed have proposed that introducing children to multiple superior divergent thinking ability and meta-cognitive at a young age will cause confusion or delays skills in bilingual children compared to monolingual in development, and consequently in verbal intelligence peers. Bilingual children in middle school score at an (Petitto & Holowka, 2002). However, diverse recent equal level on verbal skills as their monolingual coun- studies have suggested that bilinguals usually have a terparts. Thus far, there has been no evidence indicating better cognitive control, including verbal control, than that bilingual individuals have lower intellectual verbal monolinguals (Friesen, Luo, Luk, & Bialystok, 2015; abilities than monolinguals. The issue with assessment Woumans, Ceuleers, Van der Linden, Szmalec, & is that, oftentimes, these individuals are assessed in Duyck, 2015). only one language, leading to an inaccurate result. Dual language is influenced by many factors, Consequently, results are not representative of the including, input, language access, access to literacy, whole verbal individual’s abilities (Marian et al., 2009). family language use, and community support (Pearson, There is a crucial question in testing bilingual 2007). Consequently, diverse types of bilingualism individuals; does the language used in testing result in can be distinguished. An individual who acquires two different scores in bilinguals (Pham et al., 2017)? There languages since the first year of life can be considered is not a clear answer to this question, because of the a “simultaneous bilingual” (Paradis, Crago, & Genesee, heterogeneity of bilingualism; although, it is usually 2011). An individual exposed to another language after considered that the dominant language should be three years of life is considered a “second language preferred when testing bilinguals (Cummins & Swain, learner” (Paradis et al., 2011); this individual can be 2014; Gathercole & Thomas, 2009). considered as a “sequential bilingual.” If the second Intelligence test batteries have been used to evaluate language is acquired before adolescence, the individual cognitive abilities, so verbal and nonverbal. The usage of will be regarded as an “early sequential bilingual”; if verbal tests among individuals who are not proficient the second language is learned after adolescence, we enough in the language the test is administered, refer to a “late sequential bilingualism.”

CONTACT Alfredo Ardila [email protected] Florida International University, Communication Sciences and Disorders, 11200 SW 8th Street, AHC3-431B, Miami, Florida 33199, USA. © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 A. ARDILA ET AL. however, has been criticized (Naglieri & Bornstein, to Miami from a Latin American country before the 2003; Pham et al., 2017; Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). A age of 10; and (c) no documented neurological diagnosis significant disadvantage for individuals with low (, tumors, , learning disabilities, etc.). language proficiency is evident. It is not unexpected that Participants were Florida International University bilingual individuals when tested in L2 usually perform students, or family or friends of current Florida significantly worse than monolingual control indivi- International University students. duals (Garratt & Kelly, 2007; Karlsson et al., 2015). Demographics were compiled for each participant However, when nonlanguage tests are used (Jarvis, which included: participants’ age, age of arrival to the Danks, & Merriman, 1995; Naglieri, Otero, DeLauder, United States (if applicable), age when second language & Matto (2007) or when the bilingual individual was learned (if applicable), birthplace of parents, has had the opportunity to acquire a high proficiency languages spoken by each parent, language spoken at in his/her second language no differences with home, language spoken to siblings (if applicable), level monolinguals are expected (e.g., Karlsson et al., 2015). of highest education achieved, language in which Rosselli et al. (2000) reported a similar performance instruction was received at each school level, between Spanish/English bilinguals and English percentages of each language used daily, and monolinguals on diverse tests excepting semantic verbal participants’ view of his/her own speaking and fluency tasks. They also observed that bilinguals who skill level in each language. learned English before age 12 performed significantly Twenty-seven of the participants were born in the better on the English repetition test and produced a United States (simultaneous bilinguals); 21 were born higher number of words in the description of a picture in different Latin American countries (Cuba ¼ 9; than the bilinguals who learned English after age 12. In Venezuela ¼ 3; Argentina ¼ 2; Colombia ¼ 2; Peru ¼ 1; the same vein, Kalia, Wilbourn, and Ghio (2014) found Dominican Republic ¼ 1; Ecuador ¼ 1; Nicaragua ¼ 1; that early bilinguals perform similar to monolinguals Puerto Rico ¼ 1) but arrived in the United States before and higher than participants those who are exposed to the age of 10 (early sequential bilinguals). For all these a second language later in life. subjects, both parents were native Spanish speakers Available information about verbal intelligence in and the home language during childhood was Spanish. bilinguals when tested in L1 and L2 is not readily Table 1 presents a summary of the participants’ available and that information is crucial to quantify demographic characteristics. the discrepancy in verbal intelligence between L1 and Thirty participants (63%) reported that currently L2. The purpose of the current research was to find Spanish was the only language used within the home out the bilinguals Verbal IQ when tested in L1 and environment. Fifteen (31%) of the participants used L2. Given the significant heterogeneity of bilingualism both English and Spanish within the household and 3 two specific and relatively homogenous types of (6%) participants, mostly used English. 58.3% of parti- bilingualism were analyzed. A sample of simultaneous cipants spoke English in Primary/Elementary school, (exposed to both languages before the age of one year) while 95.8% spoke English in middle school and and early sequential (learning the second language 97.9% of participants reported speaking only English before the age of 10) Spanish/English bilinguals was in high school. selected in Miami. It was hypothesized that higher IQ scores would be found in English, because this was the language most frequently used at school. It was also Table 1. Participants’ demographic information. anticipated that those participants living during several U.S. born Latin Am (L.A.) years in monolingual Spanish-speaking countries would (n ¼ 27) born (n ¼ 21) t p obtain better IQ scores in Spanish than those Age 27.52 (4.50) 28.95 (6.07) 0.94 0.176 individuals born and raised in a bilingual environment. Gender Males 14 9 Females 13 12 Education High Sch 1 3 Associate 6 4 Bachelor 9 10 Method Master 10 4 Doctorate 1 0 Participants Age arrival na 6.67 (2.35) USA Forty-eight Spanish/English simultaneous and Note. For age, and age of arrival to USA, means and standard deviations (in sequential bilinguals fulfilling the following characteris- parenthesis) are presented. Gender differences between U.S. born and L.A. are not statistically significant (chi-square ¼ 0.38, p ¼ 0.536). The tics were selected: (a) 18–40 years old; (b) born in the education level differences between U.S. born and L.A. are not either United States to Spanish-speaking parents, or moved statistically significant (chi-square ¼ 1.57, p ¼ 0.957). APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: ADULT 3

The participants were requested to complete a mild, and results were similar when the order was taken self-assessment, which indicated the level of speaking into account. and reading proficiency in both languages. In terms of The subtests used from the WAIS-III were: spoken Spanish, 20.8% of the participants rated them- Vocabulary, Similarities, Arithmetic, Digit Span, Infor- selves as “excellent,” whereas 87.5% rated their spoken mation, Comprehension, and Letters and Numbers; English as “excellent.” When considering their reading and were administered in this order. The last test is skills, 25% of the participants considered their skills in not including in calculating the verbal IQ. Letters and Spanish as “excellent,” whereas 81.3% considered their Numbers is indeed a working /executive reading skills in English as “excellent.” In the daily life, functions test, used as control. All subtests were they reported using English 68% of the time, and scored using the WAIS-III Examiner Manuals. Compari- Spanish only 32%. sons were made using both the scaled scores and the Verbal IQ.

Instruments The following instruments were individually Statistical analysis administered: Considering that dependent variable (test scores) . Bilingualism Questionnaire adapted from M. Paradis had a normal distribution, a t-test was used to (1987): administered in English analyze the differences between Spanish and English. . Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition A p < 0.01 level of significance to analyze the data (WAIS-III): administered both in English and was used. Spanish (Wechsler, 1997, 1999).

Results Procedure Mean scores and standard deviation for each subtest Testing was completed at the Department of were calculated in both English and Spanish. Communication Sciences and Disorders of the Florida Table 2 and Table 3 demonstrate the results obtained International University, on a one-on-one basis in through administration of the WAIS-III in both English various locations that suited the availability of the and Spanish. Table 2 presents U.S. born participants, participants. First, the participants were required to while Table 3 presents Latin–American born sign a consent form. The consent form detailed participants. the objectives of the study and the requirements to As shown in Table 2, in the following subtests be considered a participant. Then Bilingualism differences between English and Spanish scores were Questionnaire was orally presented by asking the statistically significant in U.S. born participants: participant for basic demographic and linguistic Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information. Verbal IQ information. At the end of the questionnaire, the was average in English (100.15) but about one standard participant was presented the questionnaire to rate deviation lower in Spanish (84.63). The subtest with the their English and Spanish speaking and reading skills highest differences between both languages was on a Likert-type scale of one (being almost none) to Vocabulary; in this subtest the score in English was seven (being excellent). almost twice of the Spanish score. Testing protocols were numbered in a consecutive way. Testing order (Spanish first, English second; or English first, Spanish second) was determined on the Table 2. U.S. Born participants: Scaled scores in the different WAIS-III verbal tests. test subject number, which was assigned. Odd subject English Spanish number (testing protocol 1, 3, 5, etc.) would result in testing in English first; even number (testing protocol Test Mean SD Mean SD t p Vocabulary 9.22 3.78 4.96 2.21 5.09 0.001 2, 4, 6, etc.) resulted in Spanish first. Testing took Similarities 10.93 2.88 8.30 2.70 3.46 0.001 approximately 50–60 minutes to complete, per Arithmetic 7.70 2.77 6.37 3.25 1.61 0.055 Digit Span 11.11 2.42 9.78 2.36 2.02 0.022 participant. Information 8.85 3.11 6.63 2.83 2.74 0.004 The two applications of the WAIS were done with an Comprehension 8.59 2.62 7.59 3.13 1.27 0.104 Letters and Numbers 10.44 2.72 9.33 2.85 1.46 0.074 interval of about 30–40 minutes. During this interval, Total Scaled Scores 61.34 10.76 47.33 11.50 4.75 0.001 other verbal tests were administered. Although a Verbal IQ 100.15 11.61 84.63 12.61 4.70 0.001 memory effect could occur, this memory effect was Note. WAIS-III ¼ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. 4 A. ARDILA ET AL.

Table 3. Latin America born participants: Scaled scores in the — college level of education. It is well known that there different WAIS-III verbal tests. is a significant association between IQ and level of edu- English Spanish cation (Ceci, 1990; Ceci & Williams, 1997; Kaufman, Test Mean SD Mean SD t p Reynolds, & McLean, 1989; Neisser et al., 1996), and Vocabulary 9.48 2.50 6.90 2.36 3.42 0.001 people with a college level of education usually obtain Similarities 10.67 2.13 9.71 2.24 1.41 0.082 Arithmetic 8.90 2.81 8.00 3.22 0.96 0.169 IQ scores above the mean for the normative sample. Digit Span 11.57 2.58 10.71 2.92 1.01 0.159 Total scaled scores and Verbal IQ in English were Information 8.71 2.78 7.71 2.69 1.18 0.121 Comprehension 8.90 2.21 9.14 1.65 0.39 0.347 similar when comparing U.S. born participants and Letters and Numbers 9.43 3.28 9.86 3.80 0.39 0.348 Latin-American born participants. They were clearly Total Scaled Scores 62.90 8.67 56.57 9.78 2.22 0.016 Verbal IQ 101.52 9.16 94.76 10.54 2.21 0.016 higher than the Spanish Verbal IQ scores. However, Note. WAIS-III ¼ Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. Total Scaled Scores and Verbal IQ in Spanish were higher—but anyhow below the expected mean—in Latin American born participants than in U.S. born parti- In Table 3, results for the Latin American born cipants. This result is congruent with the proposal of participants are presented. Only in the Vocabulary subt- Gasquoine, Croyle, Cavazosgonzalez, and Sandoval est differences between both languages (9.48 and 6.90) (2007), which stated that the language of administration were statistically significant; scores in Spanish were will produce higher scores in the dominant language of about 30% lower than in English. Verbal IQ Spanish or English dominant bilinguals. This was also differences (101.52 and 94.76) represent about half a observed with the administration of the Woodcock standard deviation and were significant at the 0.02 level. Munoz Language Survey-Revised (WMLS-R) where The Letters and Numbers subtest is not used to the English dominant bilingual group mean was signifi- calculate the verbal IQ. This is a subtest that can be cantly higher in English than Spanish. Inversely, the regarded as /executive functioning ver- Spanish dominant bilingual group mean was signifi- bally mediated test. Differences between both languages cantly higher in Spanish than English (Gasquoine were neglectable, and even in the Latin-American born et al., 2007). group score was mildly higher in Spanish. The majority of participants in both groups scored higher on the WAIS-III verbal subtests when tested in English compared to when they were tested in Spanish. Discussion It is well-known that second-generation Latinos usually Results from the WAIS-III are indicative of a significant report higher fluency in English than Spanish. This may difference in Verbal IQ when testing was administered be due not only to the school language, but also to a in English (dominant language) and Spanish (primary decreasing use of Spanish in their everyday lives. In language). Noteworthy, in our bilinguals, regardless that our participants, English was about twice more used Spanish was the primary language (L1) English became on a daily basis than Spanish. the dominant language mainly as a result of schooling. The question of how evaluate linguistic abilities in It is usual that in bilinguals the school language bilinguals remains controversial (De Lamo White & becomes the dominant language (Ardila, 2016; Jin, 2011; Grech & Dodd, 2011; Kayser, 1989). Our Gathercole & Thomas, 2009; Genesee, 1987; Portes & results suggest that using the dominant language does Schauffler, 1994). not correctly appreciate the total individual’s linguistic For both subgroups of bilinguals, highest differences ability. A bilingual, particularly an active bilingual using between Spanish and English were observed in the both languages in the daily life, possess a language Vocabulary subtest. Regardless that our participants that includes elements from L1 and L2; s/ had a relatively high level of education –bachelor degree he has a linguistic representation that is not limited to in average—even in English the scaled score was below only one of the languages. Consequently, testing only the expected mean (10), suggesting that vocabulary one of the language will results in as inaccurate knowledge is decreased even when testing is performed appreciation of his verbal ability. Using a bilingual in the dominant language. It may be conjectured that testing strategy, that is, accepting answers in both using a single language does not appropriately assess languages, could potentially represent a more accurate the whole bilingual’s linguistic resources. and fair approach. Furthermore, the English Verbal IQ was about 100 Our results have significant implications for the for both groups of participants; that corresponds to neuropsychological assessment of bilingual populations. the mean score for the normative sample, but is below Using the nondominant language may result in a score the expected score for individuals with a — in average significantly lower than the score obtained when using APPLIED NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: ADULT 5 the dominant language. Nonetheless, even using the International Journal of Language & Communication Disor- dominant language, scores in language tests may not ders, 46(6), 613–627. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00049.x reflect the patient’s whole linguistic ability. As clearly Eilers, R. E., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2006). Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience. In stated by Grosjean (1989), a bilingual is not two monolin- P. McCardle & E. Hoff (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: guals in one person. The obvious conclusion is that Research on infancy through school age (pp. 68–90). Cleve- bilinguals should be evaluated using a bilingual procedure. don: Multilingual Matters. Unfortunately, this solution does not seem realistic. Friesen, D. C., Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2015). Finally, some important limitations should be recog- Proficiency and control in verbal fluency performance nized. First, our sample was relatively small, and hence across the lifespan for monolinguals and bilinguals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(3), 238–250. current results must be corroborated using larger sam- doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.918630 ples of participants. Furthermore, we were studying Garratt, L. C., & Kelly, T. P. (2007). To what extent does two very specific types of bilingualism, in a specific bilingualism affect children’s performance on the NEPSY? linguistic community. Miami bilingualism has some evi- Child Neuropsychology, 14(1), 71–81. doi:10.1080/ dent idiosyncrasies (Ardila, 2016; Carter & Lynch, 2015; 09297040701218405 Gasquoine, P., Croyle, K., Cavazosgonzalez, C., & Sandoval, Eilers, Pearson, & Cobo-Lewis, 2006), limiting the O. (2007). Language of administration and neuropsycho- generalization of our results. Bilingualism is a quite logical test performance in neurologically intact heterogeneous and complex phenomenon (Ardila, Hispanic American bilingual adults. Archives of Clinical 2007). Another important limitation of the current Neuropsychology, 22(8), 991–1001. doi:10.1016/j. study was the use of the WAIS-III. However, our study acn.2007.08.003 was directed to find out the potential difference in ver- Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first- : Dominant language takeover, bal intelligence when using the same instrument in threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Spanish and English. It can be conjectured that similar Language and Cognition, 12(2), 213–237. doi:10.1017/ differences would be observed if using a different verbal s1366728909004015 intelligence test, for instance, the WAIS-IV. The major Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of point is that scores are significantly different in Spanish immersion and bilingual education. New York, NY: Newbury House. and English. This is an issue that has to be taken into Grech, H., & Dodd, B. (2011). Assessment of and consideration in any cognitive testing in bilinguals. language skills in bilingual children: An holistic approach. Stem-, Spraak-en Taalpathologie, 15(2), 84–92. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is References not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. doi:10.1016/0093-934x(89)90048-5 Ardila, A. (2007). Bilingualism in the contemporary world. In Jarvis, L. H., Danks, J. H., & Merriman, W. E. (1995). The A. Ardila & E. Ramos (Eds.), Speech and language disorders effect of bilingualism on cognitive ability: A test of the level in bilinguals (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Nova Science. of bilingualism hypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(3), Ardila, A. (2016). La conservación del español en los Estados 293–308. doi:10.1017/s0142716400007311 Unidos de América [The conservation of Spanish in the Kalia, V., Wilbourn, M. P., & Ghio, K. (2014). Better early or United States of America]. Glosas: Academia Norteameri- late? Examining the influence of age of exposure and cana de la Lengua Española, 8(10), 7–19. language proficiency on executive function in early and late Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(7), 699–713. bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.956748 and executive functioning. Cognition, 130(3), 278–288. Karlsson, L. C., Soveri, A., Räsänen, P., Kärnä, A., Delatte, S., doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.015 Lagerström, E., … , & Laine, M. (2015). Bilingualism and Carter, P. M., & Lynch, A. (2015). Multilingual Miami: performance on two widely used developmental neuropsy- Current trends in sociolinguistic research. Language and chological test batteries. PLoS One, 10(4), e0125867. Linguistics Compass, 9(9), 369–385. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12157 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125867 Ceci, S. J. (1990). On intelligence—more or less: A bio-ecologi- Kaufman, A. S., Reynolds, C. R., & McLean, J. E. (1989). Age cal treatise on intellectual development. Prentice Hall. and WAIS-R intelligence in a national sample of adults in Upper Saddle River, NJ. the 20-to 74-year age range: A cross-sectional analysis with Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, educational level controlled. Intelligence, 13(3), 235–253. and income. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1051–1058. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(89)90020-2 doi:10.1037//0003-066x.52.10.1051 Kayser, H. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (2014). Bilingualism in education: Spanish-English speaking children. Language, Speech, and Aspects of theory, research and practice. Routledge. Services in Schools, 20(3), 226–244. doi:10.1044/ Abingdon, UK. 0161-1461.2003.226 De Lamo White, C., & Jin, L. (2011). Evaluation of speech and Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). the language assessment approaches with bilingual children. consequences of bilingualism for language processing 6 A. ARDILA ET AL.

and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497– Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of 514. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.799170 delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights Marian, V., Faroqi-Shah, Y., Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, from infants acquiring a signed and a spoken language. H. K. & Sheng, L., (2009). Bilingualism: Consequences for Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4–33. language, cognition, development, and the brain. ASHA Pham, A. V., Castro-Olivo, S., Chun, H., & Goforth, A. N. Leader, 14, 10–13. doi:10.1044/leader.ftr2.14132009.10 (2017). Cognitive abilities in bilingualswhen tested in L1 Mindt, M. R., Arentoft, A., Germano, K. K., D’Aquila, E., and L2. In A. Ardila, A. B. Cieślicka, R. Heredia, & Scheiner, D., Pizzirusso, M., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Neurop- M. Rosselli (Eds.), Psychology of bilingualism: The sychological, cognitive, and theoretical considerations for cognitive and emotional world of bilinguals. Springer. evaluation of bilingual individuals. Neuropsychology Review, New York. 18(3), 255–268. doi:10.1007/s11065-008-9069-7 Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second Naglieri, J. A., & Bornstein, B. T. (2003). Intelligence and generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. Inter- achievement: Just how correlated are they? Journal of national Migration Review, 28(4), 640–661. doi:10.2307/ Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 244–260. doi:10.1177/ 2547152 073428290302100302 Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Araujo, K., Weekes, V. A., Caracciolo, Naglieri, J. A., Otero, T., DeLauder, B., & Matto, H. (2007). V., Padilla, M., & Ostrosky -Solís, F. (2000). Verbal fluency Bilingual Hispanic children’s performance on the English and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish-English bilin- and Spanish versions of the cognitive assessment system. guals. Applied Neuropsychology, 7(1), 17–24. doi:10.1207/ School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 432. doi:10.1037/1045- s15324826an0701_3 3830.22.3.432 Sorge, G. B., Toplak, M. E., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Interac- Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., tions between levels of attention ability and levels of Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). bilingualism in children’s executive functioning. Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychol- Developmental Science, 20(1), e12408. ogist, 51(2), 77. Suzuki, L. A., & Valencia, R. R. (1997). Race-ethnicity Olsen, R. K., Pangelinan, M. M., Bogulski, C., Chakravarty, M. and measured intelligence. American Psychologists, 52, M., Luk, G., Grady, C. L., & Bialystok, E. (2015). The effect 1103–1114. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.52.10.1103 of lifelong bilingualism on regional grey and white matter Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd volume. Brain Research, 1612, 128–139. doi:10.1016/j. ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation brainres.2015.02.034 Google Scholar. Paradis, J., Crago, M. B., & Genesee, F. (2011). Dual language Wechsler, D. (1999). Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and Adultos [Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale] (3rd ed.). San second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Paradis, M. (1987). Bilingual test. Erlbaum. Mahwah, Woumans, E., Ceuleers, E., Van der Linden, L., Szmalec, A., & NJ. Duyck, W. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal cognitive control Pearson, B. Z. (2007). Social factors in childhood in bilinguals and interpreters. Journal of Experimental Psy- bilingualism in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1579. 28(3), 399–410. doi:10.1017/s014271640707021x doi:10.1037/xlm0000107