Content area
Full Text
The present study compared the performance of 44 Latino children on the Competing Language Processing Task (CLPT; C. Gaulin & T. Campbell, 1994) and the Dual Processing Comprehension Task (DPCT; S. Ellis Weismer, 1996). First, it was of interest to know if there were significant differences between children with and without bilingual proficiency on processing tasks that were assumed to require limited vocabulary knowledge. The second goal of this research was to determine whether there were cross-linguistic differences in verbal working memory by examining performance within bilinguals and between children with limited proficiency in a second language. The performance of the participating children was also examined in the context of research with other English-speaking groups. Finally, given that the CLPT and the DPCT may differ in their processing demands (from a relative focus on storage to one of attention inhibition or resistance to interference), it was important to know the extent to which these tasks were related or involved similar cognitive-linguistic operations. Results revealed shared processing skills as well as differences related to individual attainments in bilingual acquisition.
KEY WORDS: verbal, working, memory, bilingual, children
Current demographic trends in the United States indicate a significant increase in the number of children who are bilingual and, in particular, who speak Spanish as their first language (L1). Yet, available assessment tools are not normed for this population (for a review, see Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1996). In addition, typical language assessments rely heavily on previous language experience, which may vary depending on the child's exposure to the languages before the assessment (Umbel, Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1992) and may not clearly differentiate language disorders from language differences (e.g., Paradis & Crago, 2000). Recent studies with culturally and dialectally diverse groups indicate that processing measures may be less biased than traditional language-assessment tasks because they are assumed to rely less on previous language experience (Campbell, Dollaghan, Needleham, & Janosky, 1997; Ellis Weismer & Evans, 2002; Ellis Weismer, Tomblin, Zhang, Chynoweth, & Jones, 2000). Thus, from a clinical perspective, it would be important to know how these tasks could be applied to the assessment of bilingual children. However, before one can evaluate the sensitivity of these measures for the identification of bilingual children with language disorders, we need a better understanding...