UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cognitive assessment of Chinese immigrant students in Cantonese and English Tam, Susanne 1990

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1990_A8 T35.pdf [ 11.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054647.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054647+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054647.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054647+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054647+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054647+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054647 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054647.txt
Citation
1.0054647.ris

Full Text

COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT OF CHINESE IMMIGRANT STUDENTS IN CANTONESE AND ENGLISH by SUSANNE TAM B.A.(Honors), U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Educatio n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f i r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 13, 1990 (c)Susanne Tarn, 1990 if In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date August 17, 19 9 0 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT A s s e s s i n g Engl Ish-as-a-second-1anguage (ESL) c h i l d r e n in t h e i r n a t i v e and second languages <L1 & L2> i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t in a b e t t e r estimate of t h e i r academic p o t e n t i a l than in the L2 alone. In the present study, the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC), the St a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n <SB: FE), and the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB) were adm i n i s t e r e d to 32 Cantonese-speaking c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong. The mean age of these c h i l d r e n was 11.01 years. T h e i r mean age on a r r i v a l <A0A) was 9.27 years, while t h e i r mean length of r e s i d e n c e <L0R) was 1.74 years. R e s u l t s of the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s and a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d that AOA and LOR are s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r ESL immigrant's verbal performance. In a d d i t i o n , v a r i a b l e s such as fa m i l y socioeconomic s t a t u s , frequency of speaking Cantonese at home, gender, and having s t u d i e d E n g l i s h before are a l s o u s e f u l to make p r e d i c t i o n s of these c h i l d r e n ' s performance. The present sample had a high nonverbal and low verbal p r o f i l e of performance on the E n g l i s h IQ measure. However, t h i s p r o f i l e of performance was not present on the Chinese IQ measure. These f i n d i n g s add to the cumulative data that O r i e n t a l s have a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o f i l e . F i n a l l y , t h i s study suggests t h a t , i f f e a s i b l e , immigrant c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be assessed i n both LI and L2. St a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s can be used to a ssess ESL immigrant c h i l d r e n , even in t h e i r f i r s t few - i i - years of a r r i v a l to a new country. The r e s u l t s of the assessment should be kept as a r e c o r d so that comparisons can be made with f u t u r e assessment r e s u l t s . However, a l l these r e s u l t s need to be i n t e r p r e t e d with extreme c a u t i o n because i n a p p r o p r i a t e l a b e l l i n g and misplacement of these c h i l d r e n are unacceptable. - i l l - TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Problem 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 6 1.3 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study 9 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 2.1 Assessment of Engl 1sh-As-A-Second-Language (ESL) Students 10 2.2 Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n 16 2.2.1 B a s i c I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communicative S k i l l s (BICS) and Cognitive/Academic Language P r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) 16 2.2.2 Interdependence of CALP a c r o s s Languages...22 2.3 Present Study 31 I I I . METHODOLOGY 35 3.1 S u b j e c t s 35 3.2 M a t e r i a l s 36 3.3 Procedures 41 3.4 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses 44 IV. RESULTS 46 4.1 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s 46 4.1.1 Demographic Information 46 4.1.2 Performance on the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC)..49 4.1.3 Performance on the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE) 51 - i v - 4.1.4 D i f f e r e n c e s between S u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores 52 4.1.5 Performance on the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB) 54 4.2 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s 55 4.2.1 C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary Scores 55 4.2.2 C o r r e l a t i o n s between Subtest Scores 60 4.2.3 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE Subtest and WLPB Summary Scores 62 4.2.4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of Subtest and Summary Scores 63 4.2.5 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s 68 4.3 Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses 68 4.3.1 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the HK-WISC Sc a l e Scores 70 4.3.2 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the SB:FE Summary Scores 72 4.3.3 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the WLPB Standard Scores 86 4.4 A n a l y s i s of Variance (ANOVA) 90 V. DISCUSSION 93 5.1 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis One 93 5.2 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis Two 96 5.3 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis Three 98 5.4 D i s c u s s i o n of Other S i g n i f i c a n t F i n d i n g s 100 5.4.1 Test Observations 100 5.4.2 Other S i g n i f i c a n t P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s . . . . 101 5.5 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Present Study 103 5.6 Recommendations f o r Future Research 105 - v - 5.7 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Assessment of English-As-A- Second-Language <ESL> C h i l d r e n 106 5.8 Summary of D i s c u s s i o n 107 REFERENCES 108 APPENDIX A: L e t t e r of Permission 115 APPENDIX B: Background Information 121 APPENDIX C: I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Subtest Scores 126 APPENDIX D: I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE Subtest Scores 127 APPENDIX E: I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s 128 APPENDIX F: L i s t of A b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r Appendix E 130 APPENDIX G: R e s u l t s of A l l the M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses f o r Subjects'' Performance on the HK-WISC, SB: FE, and WLPB 131 - v i - LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Means and Standard Dei vat ions of Some of the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s 47 Table 2: P a r e n t s ' Highest E d u c a t i o n a l Attainments 48 Table 3: Pa r e n t s ' Occupations 48 Table 4: Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Scores 50 Table 5: Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of the SB: FE Scores 51 Table 6: S u b j e c t s ' D i f f e r e n c e s on the HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores 53 Table 7: C o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Summary Scores 56 Table 8: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores 56 Table 9: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and WLPB Summary Scores 57 Table 10: C o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE Summary Scores 57 Table 11: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE and WLPB Summary Scores 58 Table 12: C o r r e l a t i o n s of the WLPB Summary Scores 60 Tabel 13: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and SB: FE Subt e s t s 61 Table 14: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE Subtest and WLPB Summary Scores 63 Table 15: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC Subtest and Summary Scores 64 Table 16: S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Subtest Scores 65 Table 17: C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE Subtest and Summary Scores 66 Table 18: S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE Subtest Scores .....67 Table 19: R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and HK-WISC Sc a l e Scores 71 - v i i - Table 20: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with AOA, LOR, and Gender...72 Table 21: R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and S u b j e c t s ' SB: FE Summary Scores 73 Table 22: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with Gender and Age of C h i l d (AOC) 75 Table 23: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR, Mother's Education (ME), and Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) 76 Table 24: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR, Mother's Education (ME), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 76 Table 25: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR, Mother's Education (ME), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 77 Table 26: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR, Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 78 Table 27: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR, Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH)..78 Table 28: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR, S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 79 Table 29: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR, St u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 79 Table 30: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with Mother's Education (ME), Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH)..80 - v l 1 i - Table 31: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with Mother's Education (ME), Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO) and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 80 Table 32: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with Mother's Education (ME), S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH)..81 Table 33: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with Mother's Education (ME), S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) 81 Table 34: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA, LOR, and Mother's Education (ME) 83 Table 35: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA, LOR, and Mother's Education (ME) 83 Table 36: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA, LOR, and Fat h e r ' s Occupation i n Hong Kong (FHKO) 84 Table 37: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA, LOR, and Fa t h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) 85 Table 38: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA, LOR, and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH)..85 Table 39: R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Standard Scores 87 Table 40: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Reading Standard Scores with AOA and LOR 88 Table 41: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Broad Language Standard Scores with AOA and LOR 88 Table 42: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Oral Language Standard Scores with SEB and MSEB 89 - ix - Table 43: M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Oral Language Standard Scores with AOA and SEB 90 Table 44: S u b j e c t s ' Performance with Regard to Mother's Education 91 Table 45: S u b j e c t s ' SB Bead Memory Subtest Scores with Regard to F a t h e r ' s Occupation (Canada) 92 - x - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The w r i t e r would l i k e to express a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. J u l i a n n e Conry f o r her s u p e r v i s i o n in the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , to Dr. Robert Conry f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s , to Dr. A l i s t e r Cumming f o r h i s advice in the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , and to Dr. David Whittaker f o r b e i n g my f o u r t h reader. A p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o extended to a l l the c h i l d r e n , t h e i r p a r e n t s , and t h e i r s c h o o l s f o r making t h i s study p o s s i b l e . F i n a l l y , Mr. Esmond Tsao i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e in the t r a n s l a t i o n of the Parent Permission and Background Information Forms. - x l - 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the d i f f e r e n c e s in performance of Chinese immigrant students on measures that were given i n t h e i r n a t i v e or second language (Cantonese or E n g l i s h ) . With a b e t t e r estimate of these c h i l d r e n ' s academic p o t e n t i a l , i n a p p r o p r i a t e l a b e l l i n g and misplacement of these c h i l d r e n may be e l i m i n a t e d . 1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM During the past 15 years in Canada, there has been a dramatic i n c r e a s e i n the number of immigrant s t u d e n t s , whose n a t i v e language ( L I ) i s other than that of the school ( L 2 ) . For example, the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Education (1986) r e p o r t e d that only 6 d i s t r i c t s had no English-as-a-second-language (ESL) stude n t s , w h i l e Vancouver had 63.2% of a l l ESL students in the p r o v i n c e . Assessment f o r s p e c i a l education i s a complicated process and i s made even more so when the r e f e r r e d i n d i v i d u a l i s from a c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e or l i m i t e d E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g background. While accuracy and care are always e s s e n t i a l i n assessment, these f a c t o r s are even more c r i t i c a l when a c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e student i s the focus . L i m i t e d E n g l i s h - p r o f i c i e n t (LEP) and c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e students are at high e r r i s k f o r premature l a b e l l i n g , 2 m i s c l a s s l f I c a t i o n , and i n a p p r o p r i a t e placement (Cummins, 1984). Thus, the assessment of these students must be conducted with extreme care (Barona & Barona, 1987). A c c o r d i n g to Samuda and Crawford (1980), i n i t i a l placement of immigrant students i s u s u a l l y made on the b a s i s of a review of the student's r e c o r d s , an i n t e r v i e w with the student, and an o r i e n t a t i o n t o the s c h o o l . Most students are p l a c e d in the grade l e v e l a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e i r age. When a student e x p e r i e n c e s academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , an assessment i s u s u a l l y i n i t i a t e d by the teacher or parent. During the assessment p e r i o d , t e s t s that are most f r e q u e n t l y given to ESL stu d e n t s are teacher-made t e s t s and the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974) (Samuda & Crawford, 1980). Within about 1 1/2-2 years of a r r i v a l in the host country, most immigrant students have a c q u i r e d r e l a t i v e l y f l u e n t and p e e r - a p p r o p r i a t e , f a c e - t o - f a c e communicative s k i l l s in the L2. When they appear to have overcome obvious communicative d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the L2, most teach e r s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s tend to c o n s i d e r that these students have s u f f i c i e n t E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y to be adm i n i s t e r e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l and educa t i o n a l t e s t s . P s y c h o l o g i s t s o f t e n assume that these c h i l d r e n are no longer handicapped on a verbal IQ t e s t by t h e i r ESL background because t h e i r L2 f a c e - t o - f a c e communicative s k i l l s appear adequate. It i s 3 assumed that the language p r o f i c i e n c y i s the same f o r L2 f a c e - t o - f a c e communication as f o r performance on an L2 co g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c task. T h i s assumption o f t e n leads d i r e c t l y to the c o n c l u s i o n that poor performance on an L2 verbal IQ t e s t i s a f u n c t i o n of d e f i c i e n t c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s (Cummins & Swain, 1986). C o n t r i b u t i n g to the tendency of p s y c h o l o g i s t s to make l o g i c a l l y i n v a l i d i n f e r e n c e s i s the apparent f l u e n c y of many immigrant s t u d e n t s i n E n g l i s h and the f a c t that p s y c h o l o g i s t s and teac h e r s have no i n f o r m a t i o n on how long It takes immigrant s t u d e n t s to approach grade norms in E n g l i s h c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c s k i l l s (Cummins, 1984). Cummins (1981) has suggested that immigrant c h i l d r e n who a r r i v e in the host country a f t e r the age of s i x r e q u i r e at l e a s t 5 years, on the average, to approach grade norms in L2 c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y . A c c o r d i n g to Cummins (1984), an immigrant c h i l d takes approximately 2 years to a c q u i r e o r a l language s k i l l s in t h e i r L2 and approximately 5-7 years to a c q u i r e the language s k i l l s that are necessary f o r academic success comparable to that of a n a t i v e language speaker. Thus, c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and academic as p e c t s of language p r o f i c i e n c y need to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . F a i l u r e to take i n t o account these two dimensions of language p r o f i c i e n c y may lead to an underestimation of c h i l d r e n ' s academic p o t e n t i a l . These c h i l d r e n ' s poor 4 performance on p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment i s l i k e l y to r e f l e c t I n s u f f i c i e n t time to a t t a i n age-appropriate l e v e l s of E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y . Immigrant students a c q u i r e L2 c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s k i l l s more r a p i d l y than age-appropriate L2 academic s k i l l s ; t h i s may be due to the f a c t that g r e a t e r contextual support i s a v a i l a b l e f o r communicating and r e c e i v i n g meaning l n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s than in academic s e t t i n g s . Thus, l e s s knowledge of the L2 i s r e q u i r e d to f u n c t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . C o l l i e r (1987) a l s o conducted a study on age and r a t e of second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) f o r academic purposes. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that LEP stu d e n t s who entered the ESL program at ages 8-11 were the f a s t e s t a c h i e v e r s , r e q u i r i n g 2-5 years to reach the 50th p e r c e n t i l e on n a t i o n a l norms ln a l l the s u b j e c t areas t e s t e d . LEP students who entered the program at ages 5-7 were 1-3 years behind the performance l e v e l of t h e i r LEP peers who ent e r e d the program at ages 8-11, when both groups had the same length of r e s i d e n c e (LOR). A r r i v a l s at ages 12-15 experienced the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y and were p r o j e c t e d to r e q u i r e as much as 6-8 years to reach g r a d e - l e v e l norms i n academic achievement when sc h o o l e d a l l In the L2. Whereas some groups of LEP stud e n t s may reach p r o f i c i e n c y i n some s u b j e c t s in as l i t t l e as 2 years, i t i s p r o j e c t e d that at l e a s t 4-8 years may be 5 r e q u i r e d f o r a l l ages of LEP students to reach g r a d e - l e v e l norms of n a t i v e speakers In a l l s u b j e c t areas of language and academic achievement, as measured on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . A number of s t u d i e s (e.g., Cummins, 1979; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976; Ekstrand, 1978) have supported the i s s u e that the cognitive/academic a s p e c t s of LI and L2 are interdependent. A l s o , the development of p r o f i c i e n c y in L2 i s p a r t i a l l y a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of LI p r o f i c i e n c y at the time when Int e n s i v e exposure to L2 i s begun. Appel (1979), Ekstrand (1977), and Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) have shown a c l e a r advantage f o r o l d e r l e a r n e r s In mastery of L2 syntax and morphology as well as in the c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c types of L2 s k i l l s measured by conventional s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . However, the f i n d i n g s are l e s s c l e a r in a s p e c t s of L2 p r o f i c i e n c y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to communicative s k i l l s , such as o r a l f l u e n c y , phonology, and l i s t e n i n g communication. For example, Oyama (1978) r e p o r t s an advantage f o r younger immigrant l e a r n e r s on both p r o d u c t i v e phonology and l i s t e n i n g comprehension t e s t s . On the other hand, Snow and Hoefnage1-Hoh1e (1978) found that o l d e r l e a r n e r s performed b e t t e r on measures of these s k i l l s . A c c o r d i n g to the P r o f e s s i o n a l Conduct Manual ( N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School P s y c h o l o g i s t s , 1984) and Hartshorne and Hoyt (1985), t e s t s and other e v a l u a t i o n m a t e r i a l s should 6 be p r o v i d e d and a d m i n i s t e r e d i n the c h i l d ' s LI or other mode of communication, u n l e s s l t i s c l e a r l y not f e a s i b l e to do so. W i l l i g (1986) has a l s o suggested that in order to determine whether an immigrant c h i l d does indeed have an e d u c a t i o n a l handicap, the c h i l d must be t e s t e d i n h i s / h e r s t r o n g e s t language (LI) because a true d i s a b i l i t y must be apparent in the dominant language. If there i s no d i s a b i l i t y i n the c h i l d ' s dominant language, there can be no d i s a b i l i t y . Any symptoms of d i s a b i l i t y must then be m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of the p r o c e s s of SLA. 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The present study addresses the q u e s t i o n , to what extent does immigrant s t u d e n t s ' age on a r r i v a l <AOA) and length of r e s i d e n c e (LOR) a f f e c t t h e i r performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s that are given i n t h e i r n a t i v e or second language (LI or L2)? The problems a s s o c i a t e d with the assessment of immigrant students have s t i m u l a t e d a number of a l t e r n a t i v e procedures in e v a l u a t i n g them. One of these procedures i s the use of t r a n s l a t e d v e r s i o n s of North American s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , which are normed, item-analyzed, and f a c t o r - a n a l y z e d c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y . The development of these v e r s i o n s i s an attempt to c o r r e c t the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n s of these t e s t s ; f o r example, the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y may change as a r e s u l t 7 of the t r a n s l a t i o n , and there are many concepts which have no e q u i v a l e n t s . For example, the WISC-R has been adapted and s t a n d a r d i z e d on v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong, Mexico, and Spain. These t e s t s are a p p l i c a b l e f o r students who r e s i d e i n those c o u n t r i e s or who have r e c e n t l y migrated to a new country from them C E s q u i v e l , 1985). In the present study, the Hong-Kong Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC, ad m i n i s t e r e d in Cantonese) (Yung, 1981), the s h o r t form of the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE, a d m i n i s t e r e d in E n g l i s h ) (Thorndike, Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1986a), and the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y - E n g l i s h Form (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984) were ad m i n i s t e r e d to Cantonese-speaking immigrant c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong. Lynn, P a g l i a r i , and Chan (1988) have suggested that Hong Kong c h i l d r e n and other O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s share a s i m i l a r p r o f i l e of performance on t e s t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . They u s u a l l y d i s p l a y higher v i s u a l - s p a t i a l s c o r e s , higher perceptual r a t e s , and lower verbal s c o r e s when compared with Caucasian p o p u l a t i o n s . The present study had three hypotheses. F i r s t , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d that immigrant s t u d e n t s ' AOA and LOR in Canada and performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s would be c o r r e l a t e d . Thus, the longer the immigrant c h i l d r e n have o b t a i n e d 8 education i n Canada (or LOR), the b e t t e r t h e i r performance on the SB: FE and WLPB (measures of t h e i r E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y ) s h o u l d be. On the other hand, i t was hyp o t h e s i z e d that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between LOR and subjects'" performance on the Chinese IQ measure. With r e g a r d to AOA, o l d e r l e a r n e r s (who immigrated to Canada when they were o l d e r ) were hy p o t h e s i z e d to have b e t t e r performance than younger l e a r n e r s on the E n g l i s h measures. On the Chinese measure, there s h o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between AOA and performance. Secondly, s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC performance was hyp o t h e s i z e d to have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with performance on the SB: FE. Thus, the s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC performance should be p r e d i c t i v e of t h e i r performance on the SB: FE. F i n a l l y , i t was hy p o t h e s i z e d that a high nonverbal and low verbal a b i l i t i e s p r o f i l e would be apparent on the SB: FE. S u b j e c t s ' performance on nonverbal measures (e.g., the SB P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s & M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t s ) would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than t h e i r performance on the verbal measures (e.g., the SB Vocabulary & Memory f o r Sentences s u b t e s t s ) . Since s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC verbal and nonverbal performance should be s i m i l a r , there would be a l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r HK-WISC and SB: FE s c o r e s i n verbal than nonverbal areas. 9 1.3 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY A s s e s s i n g ESL students with measures that are given in t h e i r LI and L2 i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t In a b e t t e r estimate of t h e i r academic p o t e n t i a l . With the knowledge of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s i n both languages, the p o t e n t i a l f o r m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t e s t r e s u l t s may be reduced. Since there i s an i n c r e a s i n g number of immigrant c h i l d r e n i n Vancouver, i t i s Important to gather more info r m a t i o n on them in order to b e t t e r serve t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l needs. At present, the technology, knowledge base, and r e g u l a t i o n s governing the p r a c t i c e of psycho-educational assessment are inadequate to meet the needs of immigrant students with v a r y i n g l e v e l s of l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i c i e n c y and home-1anguage backgrounds. The present study attempted to prov i d e f u r t h e r knowledge i n t h i s f i e l d to help p s y c h o l o g i s t s and teachers make l o g i c a l l y v a l i d i n f e r e n c e s from e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t r e s u l t s . In summary, the present study has both p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s . 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE T h i s chapter reviews the re s e a r c h and t h e o r i e s r e l a t i n g to the assessment of English-as-a-second-language (ESL) stu d e n t s . Issues r e g a r d i n g the purposes and procedures of assessment in b i l i n g u a l and ESL s e t t i n g s , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of b a s i c Interpersonal communicative s k i l l s (BICS) and cogn i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP), interdependence of CALP a c r o s s languages, and the i n t e l l i g e n c e p r o f i l e of O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s are a l l b e i n g addressed. In a d d i t i o n , the purpose and hypotheses of the present study are r e s t a t e d to s p e c i f y the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s study with r e g a r d to the l i t e r a t u r e . 2.1 ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE (ESL) STUDENTS Assessment i s used f o r many d i f f e r e n t purposes in b i l i n g u a l and ESL s e t t i n g s , i n c l u d i n g placement, d i a g n o s i s , e x i t from a program, and e v a l u a t i o n of a program (Ovando & C o l l i e r , 1985). Attempting to understand a l l the i s s u e s i n the assessment of language-minority students i s c h a l l e n g i n g , complicated, and sometimes very c o n f u s i n g . While we can e a s i l y agree that these c h i l d r e n d i f f e r in t h e i r a b i l i t i e s and s t y l e s of l e a r n i n g , and that some of these d i f f e r e n c e s may be r e l a t e d to c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l f a c t o r s , i t i s not at a l l c l e a r when such d i f f e r e n c e s need to be c o n s i d e r e d d i s a b i l i t i e s or impairments (Maclntyre, 11 1985). A c c o r d i n g to Samuda and Crawford's (1980) survey of 34 school boards in Toronto, assessment i s p e r c e i v e d as the most d i f f i c u l t p a r t of the school placement p r o c e s s f o r immigrant s t u d e n t s . Respondents commented on the d i f f i c u l t y of i d e n t i f y i n g the student's l e v e l of f u n c t i o n i n g and had t r o u b l e d e c i d i n g whether the problem was one of language or of l e a r n i n g . In i n t e r p r e t i n g assessment data f o r the c u l t u r a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d , many p s y c h o l o g i s t s and d i a g n o s t i c i a n s do not seem to understand the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) p r o c e s s and t h e i r o v e r l a p with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of language d i s o r d e r s or d e f i c i e n c i e s among n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h (Shephard & Smith 1981; Wright & Santa Cruz, 1983). Cummins' (1980, 1984) a n a l y s e s of the teacher r e f e r r a l forms and p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessments of 428 c h i l d r e n from ESL backgrounds i n one Canadian school d i s t r i c t exposes a v a r i e t y of problems a s s o c i a t e d with the assessment of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . If a non-native c h i l d speaks E n g l i s h , r e g a r d l e s s of i t s q u a l i t y , he/she i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to possess the same s k i l l s and l i n g u i s t i c background as a n a t i v e speaker of the language. That i s , the c h i l d i s c o n s i d e r e d p r o f i c i e n t enough to compete with n a t i v e speakers in academic areas and i s expected to perform as one. Consequently, data i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and program assignment may be based upon a misconception which has the 12 p o t e n t i a l , e v e n t u a l l y , to l i m i t the academic l e a r n i n g measured by s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . Cummins (1984) shows that many students manage to r a p i d l y a c q u i r e the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s of E n g l i s h and impress a s s e s s o r s as having the l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s necessary to handle the complex context-reduced language which i s used by t e a c h e r s and found In textbooks and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . However, i f these s t u d e n t s begin to experience achievement d i f f i c u l t i e s , a r e f e r r a l to s p e c i a l education i s l i k e l y to f o l l o w . Often, lack of E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y i s r u l e d out as a p o s s i b l e cause of the problem because the c h i l d appears to have no d i f f i c u l t y understanding or communicating with t e a c h e r s or peers. Cummins (1984) shows that such students o f t e n demonstrate good i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s in E n g l i s h , but they may a c t u a l l y need more time to o b t a i n the academic language p r o f i c i e n c y r e q u i r e d f o r s c h o o l i n g than i s u s u a l l y a f f o r d e d them. As a r e s u l t , the p o s s i b i l i t y of school f a i l u r e f o r such s t u d e n t s i s exacerbated. Procedures f o r e v a l u a t i n g l i m i t e d - E n g l i s h - p r o f i c i e n t (LEP) and b i l i n g u a l s t udents i n v o l v e informal and formal approaches ( E s q u i v e l , 1985). Informal approaches i n c l u d e c o n s u l t a t i o n , parent i n t e r v i e w s , c o l l e c t i o n of background i n f o r m a t i o n , o b s e r v a t i o n s , and c h i l d i n t e r v i e w s . C o n s u l t a t i o n with teachers working with the c h i l d may serve as a means of problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Through a c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between teac h e r s and the school 13 p s y c h o l o g i s t , the a c t u a l source and nature of the c h i l d ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s are h o p e f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d . I n v o l v i n g p a r e n t s in the assessment p r o c e s s f u r t h e r f a c i l i t a t e s the understanding of s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l v a l u e s which may a f f e c t the c h i l d ' s school adjustment. The extent of exposure to formal l e a r n i n g e x p e r iences, the p a t t e r n of m o b i l i t y , age on a r r i v a l <AOA), and length of r e s i d e n c e <LOR) in the country are v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e academic achievement and SLA. C o n s i d e r a t i o n of these important f a c t o r s p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t d i a g n o s t i c Information. Observational techniques such as s o c i o m e t r i c measures, n a t u r a l i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s , b e h a v i o r a l procedures, classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s c a l e s , and anecdotal r e p o r t s are u s e f u l . However, these o b s e r v a t i o n s are meaningful only when i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n the context of the c h i l d ' s unique c u l t u r a l e x perience. Communicating with c h i l d r e n i s one of the most s i g n i f i c a n t ways to l e a r n about them, s i n c e verbal i n t e r a c t i o n may shed l i g h t on t h e i r r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t y l e , and language s k i l l s . The use of drawings and play a c t i v i t i e s are u s e f u l d i a g n o s t i c t o o l s f o r those c h i l d r e n who are l e s s v e r b a l . Formal approaches i n c l u d e non-verbal t e s t s , verbal t e s t s , t e s t t r a n s l a t i o n s , and s t a n d a r d i z e d - t r a n s l a t e d v e r s i o n s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r the use of non-verbal t e s t s i s that LEP and b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n u s u a l l y do s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r in t e s t s of performance where the use of language i s 14 l i m i t e d and the i n f l u e n c e of c u l t u r e reduced. The use of s t a n d a r d i z e d verbal s c a l e s i s a p p l i c a b l e p r i m a r i l y f o r language-minority c h i l d r e n who have been p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f i e d as E n g l i s h dominant. N e v e r t h e l e s s , f i n d i n g s need to be i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t of the c h i l d ' s l e v e l of a c c u l t u r a t i o n and s o c i o c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s ( V a l e n c i a , 1983). Since the degree of b i l i n g u a l i s m v a r i e s i n c h i l d r e n , they may mix languages or a l t e r n a t e between two language systems i n understanding and responding to q u e s t i o n s . T h e i r a b i l i t y to express themselves i n e i t h e r language may depend on the nature of the task or the context w i t h i n which they learned the s p e c i f i c s k i l l r e q u i r e d . Consequently, the examiner may have to switch from one language to the other and to t r a n s l a t e s p e c i f i c Items or i n s t r u c t i o n s . D i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n s of t e s t s have inherent flaws in that they do not y i e l d t e c h n i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t forms. For example, some words do not have exact c o u n t e r p a r t s , the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y may change as a r e s u l t of the t r a n s l a t i o n , there are many concepts which have no e q u i v a l e n t s , and the t e s t content remains culture-bound (Olmedo, 1981). The development of t r a n s l a t e d v e r s i o n s which are item-analyzed and f a c t o r - a n a l y z e d c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y i s another approach which has been attempted as a means of c o r r e c t i n g f o r d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent in d i r e c t t e s t t r a n s l a t i o n s . For example, the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974) has been 15 adapted and standardized on various populations, including children from Hong Kong, Mexico, and Spain. These tests are applicable for students who reside in those countries or who have recently migrated to this country from them (Esquivel, 1985). According to Maidonado-Colon (1986), whenever l inguis t i ca l ly /cu l tura l ly different children are to be assessed for the purpose of distinguishing disorders or d i sab i l i t i e s from problems of SLA, information related to the following areas should be obtained: <1) results of a language proficiency measure in each language, along with results of other measures or procedures considered appropriate to evaluate a suspected handicap or d i sab i l i ty ; (2) documentation of the language of the home as well as an estimate of the quality of language use in the home; (3) documentation of pre-academic experiences relevant to what is being evaluated; (4) records of any previous intervention in which the chi ld was involved; and (5) the chi ld 's l inguist ic preference by setting (e .g . , classroom, home, & play area). The consideration of complete language data guides appropriate assessment, fac i l i ta tes interpretation, and is essential for making the dist inction between deficiencies caused by functioning in a second language (L2) and true disorders which would be evident in the native language (LI) . 16 2.2 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) With r e g a r d to SLA, C o l l i e r (1987) suggests the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s need to be addressed: (1) How long does i t take to master an L2 f o r s c h o o l i n g ? (2) Is i t e a s i e r to a c q u i r e that language when one i s younger or o l d e r ? (3) What l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y in the LI and L2 i s needed to succeed a c a d e m i c a l l y i n an L2? (4) How long does i t take to reach the l e v e l of average performance by n a t i v e speakers in a l l academic s u b j e c t s l n the L2? Before one attempts to answer the above q u e s t i o n s , one has to understand the meaning of f a c t o r s l i k e b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s (BICS), c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP), and interdependence of CALP a c r o s s languages. 2.2.1 B a s i c I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communicative S k i l l s (BICS) and Cognitive/Academic Language P r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) Hernandez-Chavez, Burt, and Dulay (1978) argue that language p r o f i c i e n c y i n v o l v e s m u l t i p l e f a c t o r s a l o n g with three d i s t i n c t parameters: (1) the l i n g u i s t i c components, (2) m o d a l i t y , and (3) s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c performance. The l i n g u i s t i c components i n c l u d e phonology, syntax, semantics, and l e x i c o n . M o d a l i t y i n v o l v e s comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n through the o r a l channel and r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g through the w r i t t e n channel. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c performance i n v o l v e s the dimensions of s t y l e , f u n c t i o n , v a r i e t y , and domain. Thus, Hernandez-Chavez et a l . ' s (1978) model g i v e s r i s e to a three dimensional matrix r e p r e s e n t i n g 64 separate p r o f i c i e n c i e s . 17 H y p o t h e t i c a l 1 y , each of these p r o f i c i e n c i e s i s independently measurable. However, t h i s may be p r a c t i c a l l y impossible and even t h e o r e t i c a l l y q u e s t i o n a b l e . For example, O i l e r (1978) c l a i m s that there e x i s t s a g l o b a l language p r o f i c i e n c y f a c t o r which accounts f o r the bulk of the r e l i a b l e v a r i a n c e in a wide v a r i e t y of language p r o f i c i e n c y measures. O i l e r (1978.) argues that t h i s f a c t o r i s s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to IQ and to other a s p e c t s of academic achievement. A l s o , he c l a i m s that i t i s about e q u a l l y well measured by l i s t e n i n g , r e a d i n g , and w r i t i n g t a s k s . Nonetheless, O i l e r (1979) does a l l o w f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t , In a d d i t i o n to the g l o b a l p r o f i c i e n c y , there may be unique v a r i a n c e s a t t r i b u t a b l e to s p e c i f i c components of language s k i l l s . However, O i l e r ' s (1978, 1979) arguments seem to ignore the e x i s t e n c e of a dimension of language p r o f i c i e n c y which can be assessed by a v a r i e t y of l i s t e n i n g , r e a d i n g , speaking, and w r i t i n g t e s t s and which i s s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d both to general c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and to academic achievement. A l s o , the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s of communicative competence appear u n l i k e l y to be r e d u c i b l e to a g l o b a l p r o f i c i e n c y dimension (Canale & Swain, 1979). For these reasons, Cummins (1980) has suggested u s i n g the term cognitive/academic language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) in p l a c e of O i l e r ' s (1978, 1979) g l o b a l language p r o f i c i e n c y . CALP i s d e f i n e d as those a s p e c t s of language p r o f i c i e n c y 18 which are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the development of l i t e r a c y s k i l l s in a person's LI and L2. CALP can a l s o be r e f e r r e d to as context-reduced o r a l and w r i t t e n languages, which r e l y p r i m a r i l y on l i n g u i s t i c cues f o r meaning. CALP c o n s i s t s of the language s k i l l s necessary to f u n c t i o n in an academic s e t t i n g . T h i s language p r o f i c i e n c y i n c l u d e s academic tasks in a b s t r a c t thought and formal w r i t t e n language. C o n t r a s t e d with CALP, Cummins (1980) uses the term b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s (BICS) to r e f l e c t the a b i l i t y to speak f l u e n t l y in f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . BICS can be r e f e r r e d to as language p r o f i c i e n c y f o r context-embedded, f a c e - t o - f a c e communication where meaning can be n e g o t i a t e d and i s enhanced with a wide range of p a r a l i n g u i s t i c and s i t u a t i o n a l cues. Several i n v e s t i g a t o r s have made d i s t i n c t i o n s s i m i l a r to those between BICS and CALP. For example, Krashen (1978) has noted that the Words in Sentences sub t e s t of the Modern Language A p t i t u d e Test ( C a r r o l l & Sapon, 1959) i n v o l v e s a c o n s c i o u s awareness of language and grammar q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the t a c i t knowledge or competence that a l l n a t i v e speakers have of t h e i r language. S i m i l a r l y , W e l l s (1979), a l a r g e - s c a l e l o n g i t u d i n a l study of preschool language development among English-dominant c h i l d r e n , found that there i s only a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures of c h i l d r e n ' s performance on language t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s and developmental measures of o r a l 19 language a b i l i t y d e r i v e d from spontaneous speech. W e l l s (1979) a l s o r e p o r t s that measures of o r a l language a b i l i t y d e r i v e d from spontaneous speech on entry to school were only weakly r e l a t e d to attainment in r e a d i n g at age 7. Hernandez-Chavez et a l . (1978) have a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e d between n a t u r a l communication t a s k s and l i n g u i s t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n t a s k s . They suggest that these two t a s k s lead to q u i t e d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s in terms of the q u a l i t y of the language produced. Although CALP i s l i k e l y to be more r e a d i l y assessed by l i n g u i s t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n tasks (e.g., o r a l or w r i t t e n c l o z e ) , i t should not be assumed that i t cannot a l s o be assessed by means of n a t u r a l communication t a s k s . S t u d i e s have shown that c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of o r a l d i s c o u r s e are r e l a t e d to r e a d i n g but o t h e r s are not ( F r y , 1967). If the purpose of language p r o f i c i e n c y assessment i s to a s s i g n b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n to c l a s s e s taught through the language in which they are most capable of l e a r n i n g , i t i s e s s e n t i a l that these measures assess CALP. Thus, i f n a t u r a l communication t a s k s do not assess CALP, t h e i r r e l e v a n c e to the e d u c a t i o n a l performance of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n under l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . The d i s t i n c t i o n between CALP and BICS i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976). In t h i s study, parents and t e a c h e r s of grades 3-6 F i n n i s h immigrant c h i l d r e n in Sweden were asked to judge the 20 language p r o f i c i e n c y of these c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that i t took 4-5 years, on the average, f o r a change of language dominance to occur. Although these p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s c o n s i d e r e d F i n n i s h immigrant c h i l d r e n ' s Swedish to be q u i t e f l u e n t , t e s t s i n Swedish which r e q u i r e d c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s to be c a r r i e d out showed that t h i s s u r f a c e f l u e n c y was not r e f l e c t e d in the c o g n itive/academic a s p e c t s of Swedish p r o f i c i e n c y . S ince Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa's (1976) study i n v o l v e d s u b j e c t i v e Judgments on the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s of immigrant c h i l d r e n ' s LI and L2, i t d i d not supply enough inf o r m a t i o n on the absolute l e v e l s of LI and L2 p r o f i c i e n c y . However, Cummins' (1981) r e a n a l y s i s of data from a Toronto Board of Education survey (Ramsey & Wright, 1974) shows how LOR i s r e l a t e d to the r a p i d i t y with which Immigrant students approach grade norms in E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y . Ramsey and Wright's (1974) study i n v o l v e d 1,210 immigrant s t u d e n t s in grades 5, 7, and 9 who were l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language. The language t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d were a P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test (PVT) d e r i v e d from the Ammons P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test and a s i x - p a r t t e s t of E n g l i s h language s k i l l s developed by the Board f o r the survey (Ramsey & Wright, 1974). It was found that s tudents who a r r i v e d in Canada a f t e r the age of s i x performed p r o g r e s s i v e l y f u r t h e r be low-grade norms on measures of E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y as AOA i n c r e a s e d . However, AOA was not d i s t i n g u i s h e d from LOR in 21 the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s . Cummins' (1981) r e a n a l y s i s was designed to d i s e n t a n g l e the e f f e c t s of these two f a c t o r s . The r e s u l t s of the r e a n a l y s i s suggest that i t takes 5-7 years, on the average, f o r students who a r r i v e d in Canada at age 6 or l a t e r to approach grade norms in E n g l i s h vocabulary. Students who have been in Canada f o r 3 years and who a r r i v e d between ages 8 and 13 are approximately 1 standard d e v i a t i o n below grade norms. However, these s t u d e n t s continue to approach grade norms over time. Cummins (1981) argues that immigrant c h i l d r e n tend to a c q u i r e f l u e n t s u r f a c e s k i l l s i n t h e i r L2 more r a p i d l y than they develop L2 conceptual and l i t e r a c y s k i l l s . In g e n e r a l , BICS develops w i t h i n 2 years of exposure to the new c u l t u r e . On the other hand, CALP u s u a l l y takes an average of 5-7 years f o r language-minority s t u d e n t s to master in an L2. F a i l u r e by p s y c h o l o g i s t s to take account of t h i s developmental p r o c e s s and the l i m i t a t i o n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment instruments can r e s u l t in i n c o r r e c t diagnoses of immigrant s t u d e n t s ' academic d i f f i c u l t i e s and i n a p p r o p r i a t e academic placement. Although the above s t u d i e s (e.g., Ramsey & Wright, 1974; Cummins, 1981) p r o v i d e u s e f u l f i n d i n g s , there are l i m i t a t i o n s to t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . Since the c h i l d r e n in these s t u d i e s were only assessed in E n g l i s h , t h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y in t h e i r LI was unknown. As Maldonado-Colon (1986) mentioned, i t i s e s s e n t i a l to measure a c h i l d ' s p r o f i c i e n c y in h i s / h e r LI in order to make the 22 d i s t i n c t i o n between d e f i c i e n c i e s caused by f u n c t i o n i n g in an L2 and true d i s o r d e r s which would be evident in the L I . 2.2.2 Interdependence of CALP a c r o s s Languages It i s widely b e l i e v e d that young c h i l d r e n are the f a s t e s t , most e f f i c i e n t a c q u i r e r s of an L2. Language r e s e a r c h e r s d i s p u t e t h i s common assumption but continue to debate the optimal age f o r b e g i n n i n g SLA. However, i n c r e a s i n g r e s e a r c h evidence I n d i c a t e s that the age q u e s t i o n cannot be s e p a r a t e d from another key v a r i a b l e i n SLA: c o g n i t i v e development and p r o f i c i e n c y in the LI ( C o l l i e r , 1989). F i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n (FLA) i s not a quick and easy p r o c e s s ; i t takes a minimum of 12 years (McLaughlin, 1984; de V i l l i e r s & de V i l l i e r s , 1978). From b i r t h through age 5, c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e enormous amounts of LI phonology, vocabulary, grammar, semantics, and pragmatics, but the p r o c e s s i s not a l l complete by the time c h i l d r e n reach school age. From ages 6 to 12, c h i l d r e n s t i l l have to develop the complex s k i l l s of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g i n the L I . In a d d i t i o n to c o n t i n u i n g a c q u i s i t i o n of more complex r u l e s of morphology and syntax, there are e l a b o r a t i o n of speech a c t s , expansion of vocabulary (which c o n t i n u e s throughout a person's l i f e t i m e ) , semantic development, and even some as p e c t s of p h o n o l o g i c a l development (McLaughlin, 1984; de V i l l i e r s & de V i l l i e r s , 1978). For school purposes, 23 language a c q u i s i t i o n a l s o i n c l u d e s the vocabulary and s p e c i a l uses of language f o r each s u b j e c t area, such as m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s of language in language a r t s c l a s s e s and many other l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s a s s o c i a t e d with the use of language in each content area (Chamot & O'Malley, 1987; Heath, 1986). SLA r e s e a r c h has found that t h i s p r o c e s s of LI development has a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on the development of L2 p r o f i c i e n c y . One important f i n d i n g i s that the lack of c o n t i n u i n g LI c o g n i t i v e development d u r i n g SLA may i n a d v e r t e n t l y l e a d to lower p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s in the L2 and in c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c growth. Lambert (1984) r e f e r s to t h i s as s u b t r a c t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m . On the other hand, Cummins (1981) d e s c r i b e s t h i s i n terms of a lower t h r e s h o l d l e v e l i n the L I , or l i m i t e d b i l i n g u a l i s m , with which negative c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s are a s s o c i a t e d . Several r e s e a r c h reviews have i d e n t i f i e d groups of s t u d e n t s e x p e r i e n c i n g some negative c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of s u b t r a c t i v e or l i m i t e d b i l i n g u a l i s m (Cummins 1981, 1984; Dulay & Burt, 1980; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). When the debate about the optimal age f o r b e g i n n i n g a c q u i s i t i o n of an L2 f o r s c h o o l i n g purposes takes t h i s important i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e - LI c o g n i t i v e development - i n t o account, the arguments can be r e s o l v e d f a i r l y c o n c l u s i v e l y (Cummins, 1981). Before puberty, l t does not matter when one begins exposure to (or i n s t r u c t i o n in) a L2, 24 as long as c o g n i t i v e development in the LI c o n t i n u e s up through age 12 (the age by which FLA i s l a r g e l y completed). Cummins (1981) r e f e r s to a common u n d e r l y i n g p r o f i c i e n c y , or interdependence, e x i s t i n g between a b i U n g u a l ' s two languages (even given widely v a r y i n g s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s ) , with development of one language s t r o n g l y a i d i n g development of the second one. Cummins (1979) and Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976) have h y p o t h e s i z e d that the cognitive/academic a s p e c t s of LI and L2 are interdependent. A l s o , the development of p r o f i c i e n c y i n L2 i s p a r t i a l l y a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of LI p r o f i c i e n c y at the time when i n t e n s i v e exposure to L2 i s begun. Since LI and L2 CALP are h y p o t h e s i z e d to be m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of the same u n d e r l y i n g dimension, p r e v i o u s l e a r n i n g of l i t e r a c y - r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s of language ( i n LI) w i l l p r e d i c t f u t u r e l e a r n i n g of these f u n c t i o n s ( i n L2). If the interdependence h y p o t h e s i s i s v a l i d , LI and L2 CALP should r e l a t e s t r o n g l y to each other and show a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s with other v a r i a b l e s , such as verbal and nonverbal a b i l i t i e s . Evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h i s p r e d i c t i o n from nine s t u d i e s (e.g., Cummins, 1976; Lapkin 8. Swain, 1977; Genesee & Hamayan, 1979) i s presented in Cummins' (1979) a r t i c l e . In these s t u d i e s , the c o r r e l a t i o n s between LI and L2 ranged from .42-.77, with the m a j o r i t y i n the range of .60-.70. In a d d i t i o n , LI and L2 showed a very s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s with language a p t i t u d e and 25 IQ v a r i a b l e s . For example, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between both LI and L2 verbal IQ or language a p t i t u d e measures were u s u a l l y in the .60-.70 range, while those between LI and L2 nonverbal IQs tended to be in the .40-.50 range. E k s t r a n d (1978) has a l s o reviewed s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between LI and L2. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n s ( c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .20-.50) in these s t u d i e s are g e n e r a l l y lower than in those reviewed in Cummins' (1979) a r t i c l e , E k strand (1978) a l s o suggests that the range i s the same as f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s between LI and L2 v a r i a b l e s . Cummins (1979) and Ekstrand's (1978) f i n d i n g s suggest that measures of the cognitive/academic a s p e c t s of LI and L2 are a s s e s s i n g the same u n d e r l y i n g dimension to a s i m i l a r degree. However, these r e l a t i o n s h i p s do not e x i s t i n an a f f e c t i v e or e x p e r i e n t i a l vacuum. There are s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which might reduce the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between LI and L2 measures of CALP in comparison to those between intralanguage ( L l - L l , L2-L2) measures. For example, Cummins (1979) suggests that when m o t i v a t i o n to l e a r n an L2 (or maintain an LI) i s low, CALP w i l l not be a p p l i e d to the task of l e a r n i n g L2 (or m a i n t a i n i n g L I ) . The interdependence h y p o t h e s i s a l s o presupposes adequate exposure to both 1anguages. Cummins (1979) proposes that the view of the cognitive/academic a s p e c t s of language p r o f i c i e n c y in LI and 26 L2 as a u n i f i e d dimension g i v e s r i s e to two p r e d i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the i s s u e s of b i l i n g u a l education and age and L2 l e a r n i n g . F i r s t , i n r e l a t i o n to b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n , i t i s p r e d i c t e d that to the extent that i n s t r u c t i o n in Lx i s e f f e c t i v e i n promoting cognitive/academic p r o f i c i e n c y i n Lx, t r a n s f e r of t h i s p r o f i c i e n c y to Ly w i l l a l s o occur. T h i s t r a n s f e r e n c e w i l l occur when there i s adequate exposure to Ly ( e i t h e r In school or environment) and adequate m o t i v a t i o n to l e a r n Ly. Second, in r e l a t i o n to age and L2 l e a r n i n g , i t i s p r e d i c t e d that o l d e r l e a r n e r s ( i . e . , who came to Canada when they were o l d e r ) , whose CALP Is b e t t e r developed, w i l l a c q u i r e c o g n i tive/academic L2 s k i l l s more r a p i d l y than younger l e a r n e r s (who came to Canada when they were younger). However, t h i s w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y be the case f o r those a s p e c t s of L2 p r o f i c i e n c y u n r e l a t e d to CALP (Cummins, 1979). An examination of the c o n s i d e r a b l e number of s t u d i e s (e.g., Appel, 1979; Ekstrand, 1977; Snow & Hoefnage1-Hoh1e, 1978) r e l a t i n g age to L2 l e a r n i n g supports the p r e d i c t i o n made above. These s t u d i e s have c o n s i s t e n t l y shown a c l e a r advantage f o r o l d e r l e a r n e r s in mastery of L2 syntax and morphology as well as i n the c ognitive/academic types of L2 s k i l l s measured by conventional s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . The f i n d i n g s are l e s s c l e a r in a s p e c t s of L2 p r o f i c i e n c y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to communicative s k i l l s ( i . e . , BICS), such as o r a l f l u e n c y , phonology, and l i s t e n i n g 27 comprehension (Ekstrand, 1977; Oyama, 1978; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). For example, Oyama (1978) r e p o r t s an advantage f o r younger immigrant l e a r n e r s (6-10 years o l d on a r r i v a l ) on both p r o d u c t i v e phonology and l i s t e n i n g comprehension t e s t s . On the other hand, Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) found that o l d e r l e a r n e r s performed b e t t e r on measures of these s k i l l s . E k strand (1977) r e p o r t e d that o r a l p r o d u c t i o n was the only v a r i a b l e on which o l d e r immigrant l e a r n e r s d i d not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than younger l e a r n e r s . In areas such as l i s t e n i n g comprehension, the f i n d i n g s may well depend upon the measurement procedures used. A c a u t i o u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from these f i n d i n g s i s that o r a l f l u e n c y and accent are the areas where o l d e r l e a r n e r s most o f t e n do not show an advantage over younger l e a r n e r s . The p r e d i c t i o n which f o l l o w s from the present t h e o r e t i c a l framework i s that given s u f f i c i e n t exposure to the L2 and m o t i v a t i o n to l e a r n L2, o l d e r l e a r n e r s w i l l perform b e t t e r than younger l e a r n e r s on any measures that load on an CALP f a c t o r ( E k s t r a n d , 1978). The only c l e a r exception to the t r e n d f o r o l d e r l e a r n e r s to perform b e t t e r on measures of c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c L2 s k i l l s i s Ramsey and Wright's (1974) study, as mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. Ramsey and Wright (1974) r e p o r t e d that s t u d e n t s who a r r i v e d in Canada at age 6 or 7 or younger s u f f e r e d no academic handicap on measures of E n g l i s h language s k i l l s in r e l a t i o n to grade norms f o r the Toronto 28 system. However, f o r those who a r r i v e d at o l d e r ages, there was a c l e a r negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between AOA and performance. However, Cummins' (1981) r e a n a l y s i s of these data suggests that t h i s negative r e l a t i o n s h i p can be l a r g e l y accounted f o r by LOR. Ramsey and Wright's (1974) f i n d i n g s do not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r a d i c t those of other s t u d i e s . Ramsey and Wright's (1974) c o n c l u s i o n s are based on standard s c o r e s , whereas most of the other s t u d i e s (e.g., Appel, 1979; Ekstrand, 1977) have compared o l d e r and younger l e a r n e r s in terms of raw ( a b s o l u t e ) s c o r e s . Thus, o l d e r l e a r n e r s may l e a r n more L2 i n absolute terms but s t i l l be f u r t h e r behind grade norms in comparison to younger l e a r n e r s (Cummins, 1981). Based on Ramsey and Wright (1974) and Cummins' (1981) f i n d i n g s , AOA does appear to have s u b t l e e f f e c t s on the r a p i d i t y with which the L2 l e a r n e r s approach grade norms. For example, in these s t u d i e s immigrant c h i l d r e n who a r r i v e d at ages 6-7 made somewhat more r a p i d p r o g r e s s towards grade norms than those who a r r i v e d at e i t h e r ages 4-5 or 8-9. For example, the 6-7 AOA group with an LOR of 5 were somewhat c l o s e r to grade norms than the 4-5 AOA group with an LOR of 7. A l s o , there i s a sharp d e c l i n e In s c o r e s at both LOR of 5 and 7 between AOA of 6-7 and 8-9. Thus, the AOA of 6-7 h i g h l i g h t e d by Ramsey and Wright (1974) as a c r i t i c a l age does appear to have some importance in terms of p r o g r e s s i o n towards grade norms. Within each LOR l e v e l , there i s a 29 l i n e a r i n c r e a s e in a b s o l u t e score with AOA. In a d d i t i o n , w i t h i n each AOA l e v e l , there i s a l i n e a r i n c rease in a b s o l u t e score with LOR. For example, those who a r r i v e d at ages 14-15 a c q u i r e d more E n g l i s h vocabulary (as measured by the PVT) (Ramsey & Wright, 1974) in 1 year than those who a r r i v e d at ages 4-5 a c q u i r e d in 7 years (27.1 vs. 26.3). However, the 14-15 AOA group i s 1.6 u n i t normal d e v i a t e s below the grade mean compared to .30 f o r the 4-5 AOA group. The f i n d i n g s from Cummins/ (1981) r e a n a l y s i s of Ramsey and Wright's (1974) data i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of the other s t u d i e s (e.g., Appel , 1979; Ekstrand, 1977; Snow 8. Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). Thus, o l d e r L2 l e a r n e r s , whose LI CALP i s b e t t e r developed, manifest L2 cognitive/academic p r o f i c i e n c y more r a p i d l y than younger l e a r n e r s because i t a l r e a d y e x i s t s i n the LI and i s t h e r e f o r e a v a i l a b l e f o r use in the new context. C o l l i e r (1987) analyzed the length of time r e q u i r e d f o r 1,548 advantaged LEP students to become p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h f o r academic purposes while r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n in E n g l i s h i n a l l s u b j e c t areas. V a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d were AOA, E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l upon a r r i v a l , b a s i c l i t e r a c y and math s k i l l s l n the LI upon a r r i v a l , and number of years of s c h o o l i n g in E n g l i s h or LOR. L2 and content-area achievement were measured by s t u d e n t s ' performance on the Science Research A s s o c i a t e s (SRA) Achievement S e r i e s (Science Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1978) i n r e a d i n g , language 30 a r t s , mathematics, s c i e n c e , and s o c i a l s t u d i e s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that LEP students who ent e r e d the ESL program at ages 8-11 were the f a s t e s t a c h i e v e r s , r e q u i r i n g 2-5 years to reach the 50th p e r c e n t i l e on n a t i o n a l norms in a l l the s u b j e c t areas t e s t e d . LEP students who entered the program at ages 5-7 were 1-3 years behind the performance l e v e l of t h e i r LEP peers who entered the program at ages 8-11, when both groups had the same LOR. A r r i v a l s at ages 12-15 experien c e d the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y and were p r o j e c t e d to r e q u i r e as much as 6-8 years to reach g r a d e - l e v e l norms i n academic achievement when sc h o o l e d a l l in the L2. Whereas some groups of LEP students may reach p r o f i c i e n c y i n some s u b j e c t s in as l i t t l e as 2 years, i t i s p r o j e c t e d that at l e a s t 4-8 years may be r e q u i r e d f o r a l l ages of LEP students to reach g r a d e - l e v e l norms of n a t i v e speakers in a l l s u b j e c t areas of language and academic achievement, as measured on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . L2 p r o f i c i e n c y and academic achievement do not occur q u i c k l y ; they i n v o l v e a developmental p r o c e s s that takes a much longer time than school personnel have tended to assume. When sc h o o l e d e x c l u s i v e l y i n the L2, students r e q u i r e a minimum of 5 years to reach the 50th p e r c e n t i l e on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . T h i s i s true even f o r the most advantaged stud e n t s , that i s , those who have a s t r o n g e d u c a t i o n a l background and who come from a middle- or upper m i d d l e - c l a s s background ( C o l l i e r , 1987; Cummins, 1981). 31 2.3 PRESENT STUDY Ov e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e students In s p e c i a l education has been a p e r s i s t e n t problem (Brosnan, 1983; Tucker, 1980; Wright 8, Santa Cruz, 1983). If these s t u d e n t s can be assessed with measures given in t h e i r LI and L2, the comparisons of t h e i r performance i s l i k e l y to p r o v i d e an accurate estimate of t h e i r academic p o t e n t i a l . In the present study, the Hong-Kong Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC, ad m i n i s t e r e d i n Cantonese) (Yung, 1981), the s h o r t form of the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE, a d m i n i s t e r e d in E n g l i s h ) (Thorndike, Hagen, and S a t t l e r , 1986a), and the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984) were a d m i n i s t e r e d to Cantonese-speaking immigrant c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong. Since c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong were r e c r u i t e d f o r t h i s study, s t u d i e s that are r e l a t e d to O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s w i l l be b r i e f l y reviewed. A number of s t u d i e s have shown that O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s have a d i f f e r e n t p r o f i l e of performance on I n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s from that of Caucasian p o p u l a t i o n s in the U n i t e d S t a t e s and the U n i t e d Kingdom (Lynn, 1987). G e n e r a l i z a t 1 o n s are l a r g e l y d e r i v e d from s t u d i e s of the i n t e l l i g e n c e of the Japanese and of e t h n i c O r i e n t a l s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s (Lynn, P a g l i a r i , & Chan, 1988). The p r i n c i p a l d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s of the Caucasian and O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s are that O r i e n t a l s t u d e n t s ' s c o r e s are 32 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by somewhat higher general i n t e l l i g e n c e or Spearman's g as assessed by t e s t s of a b s t r a c t r e a s o n i n g or from the f a c t o r s c o r e s d e r i v e d from the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component of the Wechsler t e s t s (Wechsler, 1967, 1974, 1981). O r i e n t a l s a l s o tend to have high s c o r e s on t e s t s of v i s u a l - s p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s , as r e p r e s e n t e d by t e s t s of s p a t i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e and perc e p t u a l speed. On the other hand, s c o r e s on t e s t s of verbal a b i l i t i e s appear to be r e l a t i v e l y low among O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , Lynn, et a l . (1988) conducted a study to a s c e r t a i n v a l u e s f o r some of the major v i s u a l - s p a t i a l and verbal a b i l i t i e s in Hong Kong c h i l d r e n . Samples of 10-year-old c h i l d r e n in Hong Kong and the U n i t e d Kingdom were a d m i n i s t e r e d the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983). These groups of c h i l d r e n were matched f o r years of s c h o o l i n g and socioeconomic s t a t u s (SES). The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the Hong Kong sample o b t a i n e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean on the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s than the B r i t i s h sample. Hong Kong boys o b t a i n e d a mean p e r c e n t i l e of 71.48, which i s e q u i v a l e n t to an IQ of 108.5. Hong Kong g i r l s o b t a i n e d a mean percent 11e of 68.44, which i s e q u i v a l e n t to an IQ of 107.4. On the other hand, B r i t i s h boys and g i r l s o b t a i n e d an i d e n t i c a l mean p e r c e n t i l e of 51.72, which i s e q u i v a l e n t to an IQ of 100.5. The c h i l d r e n were a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d the Space R e l a t i o n s and Perceptual Speed S c a l e s from the Primary Mental 33 A b i l i t i e s Test (PMA) ( C a t t e l l , 1971) and a word f l u e n c y t e s t to measure verbal a b i l i t i e s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that Hong Kong c h i l d r e n resembled Japanese c h i l d r e n i n having high Spearman's g, high s p a t i a l a b i l i t y , high p e r c e p t u a l speed, and low word f l u e n c y . The f i n d i n g s that both Hong Kong and Japanese c h i l d r e n o b t a i n higher means on s p a t i a l a b i l i t y than they do on Spearman's g c o n f i r m p r e v i o u s l y noted c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s . The present study d i f f e r s from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s (e.g., Cummins, 1981; C o l l i e r , 1987) in that immigrant c h i l d r e n were t e s t e d in both t h e i r LI and L2. Unless t e s t r e s u l t s in the two languages are compared, i t may not be p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n an a c c u r a t e estimate of a c h i l d ' s academic p o t e n t i a l and c u r r e n t f u n c t i o n i n g . P r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s such as c h i l d r e n ' s age, gender, AOA, LOR in Canada, p r i o r experience with E n g l i s h , frequency of use of Cantonese, and p a r e n t s ' e d u c a t i o n a l attainments and o c c u p a t i o n s were i n c l u d e d f o r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s in order to determine t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to s u b j e c t s ' performance on c o g n i t i v e and language measures. The present study had three hypotheses. F i r s t , i t was hypothesized that immigrant s t u d e n t s ' AOA and LOR i n Canada and performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s would be c o r r e l a t e d . Thus, the longer the immigrant c h i l d r e n have o b t a i n e d education i n Canada (or LOR), the b e t t e r t h e i r performance on the E n g l i s h measures should be. On the c o n t r a r y , due to lack of enrichment, the longer they have been in Canada, the 34 poorer t h e i r performance on the Chinese measure would be. With r e g a r d to AOA, o l d e r l e a r n e r s were hypothesized to have b e t t e r performance than younger l e a r n e r s on the E n g l i s h measures. Older l e a r n e r s were a l s o h y pothesized to have b e t t e r performance on the Chinese measure because o l d e r l e a r n e r s would have o b t a i n e d education in Chinese longer than the younger ones. Secondly, s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC performance was hyp o t h e s i z e d to have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with t h e i r performance on the SB: FE. If there i s interdependence of CALP a c r o s s languages, the s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC performance should be p r e d i c t i v e of performance on the SB: FE. F i n a l l y , i t was hy p o t h e s i z e d that there would be a high nonverbal and low verbal a b i l i t i e s p r o f i l e on the SB: FE. S u b j e c t s ' performance on nonverbal measures (e.g., the SB P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s & M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t s ) would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than t h e i r performance on the verbal measures (e.g., the SB Vocabulary & Memory f o r Sentences s u b t e s t s ) . On the other hand, t h i s p r o f i l e s hould not be present in the HK-WISC performance because the HK-WISC was s t a n d a r d i z e d in Hong Kong, where the s u b j e c t s migrated from. As a r e s u l t , there would be a l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r HK-WISC and SB: FE s c o r e s in verbal than nonverbal areas. 35 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 SUBJECTS T h i r t y - t h r e e Cantonese-speaking immigrant students from Hong Kong were r e c r u i t e d f o r t h i s study. In order to e l i m i n a t e p r a c t i c e e f f e c t s , none of these c h i l d r e n had been p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d with the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC) (Yung, 1981), other Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e s (Wechsler, 1967, 1974, 1981), the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE) (Thorndike, Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1986a), or the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984). A l l c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d i n a r e g u l a r classroom. One s u b j e c t ' s age on a r r i v a l (AOA) was 3.33 years and length of r e s i d e n c e (LOR) was 6.33 years, which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the other s u b j e c t s ' AOA (mean AOA was 9.27 years, with a minimum of 6.42 & a maximum of 11.83 years) and LOR (mean LOR was 1.74 years, with a minimum of .67 year & a maximum of 3.17 y e a r s ) . The i n i t i a l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d that t h i s s u b j e c t ' s AOA and LOR s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the r e s u l t s of the stepwise r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s s u b j e c t ' s data were excluded from the f i n a l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s . T h i s study had a f i n a l sample of 32 s u b j e c t s . They were students from four Richmond s c h o o l s whose grade placement ranged from 4-7. There were 21 male and 11 female 36 s t u d e n t s . The mean age of t h i s sample was 11.01 years, with a range of 9.33 to 13.50 years. 3.2 MATERIALS The present study i n v o l v e d three measures. Two were IQ t e s t s and one was a language t e s t . One of the IQ measures was given in Cantonese ( s u b j e c t s ' n a t i v e language, L I ) , w h i l e the other was given i n E n g l i s h ( s u b j e c t s ' second language, L2). The purpose of g i v i n g these two IQ t e s t s was to determine s u b j e c t s ' performance d i f f e r e n c e s on measures that were given in t h e i r LI and L2. On the other hand, the language measure was given in E n g l i s h in order to o b t a i n more Information on s u b j e c t s ' E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y . The SB: FE T e c h n i c a l Manual (Thorndike, Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1986b) r e p o r t s c o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB Area and Test Composite s c o r e s and the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974) f o r a sample of 205 non-exceptional c h i l d r e n . The c o r r e l a t i o n between the SB Test Composite score and WISC-R Verbal S c a l e score was .78; with WISC-R Performance S c a l e score i t was .73; and with WISC-R F u l l S c a le score i t was .83. The s c o r e s on the SB Verbal Reasoning Area c o r r e l a t e d .72 with WISC-R Verbal S c a l e s c o r e , .60 with WISC-R Performance Scale s c o r e , and .73 with WISC-R F u l l S c a l e s c o r e s . Scores on the SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, and Short-Term Memory Areas c o r r e l a t e d about e q u a l l y as high 37 with the WISC-R Verbal and Performance S c a l e s c o r e s . For the WISC-R Verbal S c a l e , the c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .64-.68; and f o r the WISC-R Performance S c a l e , they ranged from .63-.67. Since the p u b l i c a t i o n of the SB: FE, a number of independent v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d . One study ( L i v e s a y , 1986) compared SB Area Standard Age Scores (SAS) and Test Composite with WISC-R IQ s c o r e s of 166 g i f t e d white elementary c h i l d r e n . Mean WISC-R F u l l S c a l e score was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the mean SB Test Composite (123.33 vs. 120.63). C o r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s s c a l e s were .55 (WISC-R F u l l S c a l e vs. SB Test Composite), .58 (WISC-R F u l l S c a l e vs. Verbal Reasoning), .28 (WISC-R F u l l S c a l e vs. A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning), .38 (WISC-R F u l l S c a l e vs. Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning), and .31 (WISC-R F u l l S c a l e vs. Short-Term Memory). Liv e s a y (1986) found that s c o r e s on the SB: FE were s l i g h t l y lower than the WISC-R IQs and i n d i c a t e d that while the SB: FE i s an acc e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to the WISC-R, use of the SB: FE in e v a l u a t i o n of the g i f t e d would reduce the number of students meeting e l i g i b i l i t y requirements. C a r v a j a l & Weyand (1986) r e p o r t e d a c o r r e l a t i o n of .78 between SB: FE SAS and WISC-R IQs f o r 23 t h i r d - g r a d e c h i l d r e n . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the SB Test Composite mean (113.3) and the WISC-R F u l l S c a l e mean (115). R o t h l l s b e r g (1987) ob t a i n e d a s i g n i f i c a n t 38 d i f f e r e n c e between the WISC-R F u l l S c ale mean (112.53) and the SB Test Composite mean (105.53) in a sample of 32 f i r s t and second grade c h i l d r e n . However, the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n between the SB: FE SAS and WISC-R IQs was s i m i l a r ( r = .77). In summary, the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE and the WISC-R and the degree of correspondence between the r e s p e c t i v e means suggest that the t e s t s share a common conceptual background. In t h i s study, the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC) (Yung, 1981), the short form of the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE) (Thorndike, et a l . , 1986a), and the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y - E n g l i s h Form (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984) were ad m i n i s t e r e d to the s u b j e c t s . The HK-WISC (Yung, 1981) i s b a s i c a l l y a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (WISC) (Wechsler, 1949) and the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) admi n i s t e r e d in Cantonese (a southern Chinese d i a l e c t commonly used in Hong Kong). The HK-WISC was intr o d u c e d a f t e r 2 years of work on a d a p t a t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n , m o d i f i c a t i o n , and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n on a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of 1,100 5-15 years o l d Chinese c h i l d r e n in Hong Kong (Lau & Lee, 1986). Although most subt e s t items are t r a n s l a t e d e q u i v a l e n t s of the WISC or WISC-R, a few items are adapted from the 1971 B r i t i s h v e r s i o n of the WISC and the Wechsler 39 Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1955). E f f o r t s were made to a v o i d items s p e c i f i c to American c u l t u r e (Chan, 1984). There are 12 s u b t e s t s , and they have been d i v i d e d i n t o Verbal Scale s u b t e s t s ( I n f o r m a t i o n , S i m i l a r i t i e s , A r i t h m e t i c , Vocabulary, Comprehension, and D i g i t Span) and Performance S c a l e s u b t e s t s ( P i c t u r e Completion, P i c t u r e Arrangement, Block Design, Object Assembly, Coding, and Mazes). Among these s u b t e s t s , Vocabulary i s the only subtest that i s not a t r a n s l a t e d e q u i v a l e n t ; the language d i f f e r e n c e r e q u i r e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of Cantonese items (Chan, 1984). A c c o r d i n g to Lee and Lam (1988), the f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c p r o p e r t i e s ( f a c t o r p a t t e r n m a t r i c e s , c o v a r i a n c e m a t r i c e s of common f a c t o r s , and the m a t r i c e s of uniqueness) of the HK-WISC are i n v a r i a n t from those on the WISC-R. Lau and Lee (1986) have suggested that the HK-WISC has s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l i a b i l i t y . The HK V e r b a l , Performance, and F u l l S c a l e IQs have an average r e l a i b l l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .91, .81, and .91 r e s p e c t i v e l y . These average c o e f f i c i e n t s are comparable to those of the WISC-R (.94 f o r V e r b a l , .90 f o r Performance, & .96 f o r F u l l S c a l e IQs) (Wechsler, 1974). The SB: FE (Thorndike et a l . , 1986a) Is designed f o r ages 2-0 to 23 yea r s . In the complete b a t t e r y of the SB: FE, some of the s u b t e s t s are ad m i n i s t e r e d only at the preschool and elementary school ages (e.g., A b s u r d i t i e s and Copying), while o t h e r s are adm i n i s t e r e d only at the upper year l e v e l s (e.g., Number S e r i e s and Equation B u i l d i n g ) . Of 40 the 15 s u b t e s t s , only 6 run throughout the s c a l e - Vocabulary, Comprehension, P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s , Q u a n t i t a t i v e , Bead Memory, and Memory f o r Sentences. These s i x s u b t e s t s make up the sh o r t form of the SB: FE. In a d d i t i o n to these s i x s u b t e s t s , the M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t was a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t h i s study. Thus, a t o t a l of seven SB: FE s u b t e s t s were given to the s u b j e c t s . The major advantage of u s i n g the sh o r t form i s that every c h i l d was exposed to the same types of s u b t e s t s . Standard age s c o r e s (SAS) can be ob t a i n e d in four areas: Verbal Reasoning, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, and Short-Term Memory. The SB Test Composite i s based upon these four area s c o r e s . The short form can y i e l d e s t i m a t e s of two f a c t o r s c o r e s : Verbal Comprehension (Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Memory f o r Sentences) and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n ( P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s , Q u a n t i t a t i v e , and Bead Memory) u s i n g S a t t l e r ' s (1988) method. H i s a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s with varimax r o t a t i o n suggest the development of these two f a c t o r s c o r e s in g u i d i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s needed f o r c l i n i c a l and psycho-educational e v a l u a t i o n s . The Verbal Comprehension Fa c t o r score d i f f e r s from the Verbal Reasoning SAS in that the Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t score i s i n c l u d e d . On the other hand, the Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Score d i f f e r s from the A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS in that the Q u a n t i t a t i v e and Bead Memory subtest s c o r e s are 41 i n c l u d e d . A c c o r d i n g t o S a t t l e r ( 1 9 8 8 ) , the SB: FE has e x c e l l e n t norms, r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y . The WLPB (Woodcock, 1984) r e p r e s e n t s s e l e c t e d p o r t i o n s of the Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l B a t t e r y (Woodcock, 1977). The WLPB has e i g h t s u b t e s t s w i t h norms f o r age 3 t o g e r i a t r i c l e v e l . Four s u b t e s t c l u s t e r s c o r e s a r e the p r i m a r y s o u r c e s f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s performance: (1) Oral Language ( P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y , Antonyms-Synonyms, & A n a l o g i e s ) , (2) Readin g ( L e t t e r - W o r d I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Word A t t a c k , & Passage Comprehension), (3) W r i t t e n Language ( D i c t a t i o n & P r o o f i n g ) , and (4) Broad Language ( O r a l Language, Re a d i n g , & W r i t t e n Language). A c c o r d i n g t o Noyce (1985) and Quinn ( 1 9 8 5 ) , the WLPB i s a p r o m i s i n g t o o l t h a t w i l l f u r n i s h a comprehensive p i c t u r e of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s language s k i l l s ( i n E n g l i s h & Sp a n i s h ) f o r a b r o a d range of pur p o s e s . In a d d i t i o n , Anderson and M o r r i s (1989) suggest t h a t the WLPB may be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r the assessment of c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e s t u d e n t s . 3.3 PROCEDURES B e f o r e c a r r y i n g out t h i s s t u d y , p e r m i s s i o n f o r c o n d u c t i n g i t was o b t a i n e d from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s . F i r s t , g e n e r a l p e r m i s s i o n was o b t a i n e d from the Department of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C olumbia, the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 42 Columbia's Behavioral S c i e n c e s Screening Committee, and Richmond School Board. Secondly, consent was obt a i n e d from the s u b j e c t s ' p a r e n t s (see Appendix A). When the parents had given consent f o r t h e i r c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s study, they were asked to complete a Background Information Form (see Appendix B). A f t e r o b t a i n i n g p e r m i s s i o n , the re s e a r c h e r a d m i n i s t e r e d the HK-WISC, SB: FE, and WLPB to the c h i l d r e n . In order to c o n t r o l p r o g r e s s i v e e r r o r s , such as p r a c t i c e and boredom e f f e c t s , t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was counterbalanced. Thus, h a l f of the c h i l d r e n were t e s t e d with the HK-WISC and the f i r s t f our s u b t e s t s of the WLPB f i r s t , w h i le h a l f were t e s t e d with the SB: FE and the f i r s t f our s u b t e s t s of the WLPB f i r s t . T h e r e f o r e , the WLPB was ad m i n i s t e r e d in two s e s s i o n s . The time i n t e r v a l between t e s t s was 1 month because A n a s t a s i (1988) has suggested that i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s can be given a f t e r approximately an 1-month i n t e r v a l f o r d e t e r m i n i n g r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . Each c h i l d was i d e n t i f i e d by a s e r i a l number so that h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y remained c o n f i d e n t i a l . A c c o r d i n g to s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures, each c h i l d was t e s t e d in two s e s s i o n s , each l a s t i n g f o r approximately 1 1/2 hours. T e s t i n g took p l a c e in a room l o c a t e d in the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l . It was presumed that the c h i l d r e n would not remember enough items to i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s ' performance. 43 On the HK-WISC, raw s c o r e s were converted i n t o s c a l e d s c o r e s (M_ = 10 & SJJ = 3) w i t h i n the examinee's own age group. Then these s c a l e d s c o r e s were used to o b t a i n D e v i a t i o n IQs, i n c l u d i n g a Verbal S c a l e IQ, a Performance Sc a l e IQ, and a F u l l S c ale IQ. These can a l s o be r e f e r r e d to as standard s c o r e s (M = 100 8. SJD = 15). The Verbal S c a l e IQ i s based on the Verbal s u b t e s t s (except D i g i t Span), w h i l e the Performance Scale IQ i s based on the Performance s u b t e s t s (except Mazes). A l l the con v e r s i o n t a b l e s can be found in the HK-WISC Manual (Yung, 1981). On the SB: FE, raw s c o r e s were f i r s t c o nverted i n t o SAS or s c a l e d s c o r e s (M = 50 8. SD = 8) w i t h i n the examinee's own age group. Then these s c a l e d s c o r e s were used to o b t a i n area s c o r e s (M = 100 & SD = 16). F i n a l l y , these area s c o r e s were converted i n t o a Composite Score (M = 100 8. Sfi = 16). The Composite Score i s s i m i l a r to the D e v i a t i o n IQ employed on the Wechsler s c a l e s ( S a t t l e r , 1988). The con v e r s i o n t a b l e s can be found in the Guide f o r A d m i n i s t e r i n g and S c o r i n g , the Stan d f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (Thorndike, et a l . , 1986a). On the WLPB, raw s c o r e s were converted i n t o p a r t s c o r e s . Then the pa r t s c o r e s f o r each c l u s t e r were summed to o b t a i n the c l u s t e r s c o r e . The c l u s t e r score f o r Broad Language was obt a i n e d by summing the c l u s t e r s c o r e s f o r Oral Language, Reading, and Wr i t t e n Language, and then d i v i d i n g by three. For a l l c l u s t e r s a value of 500 r e p r e s e n t s the l e v e l of performance 44 approximately equal to the b e g i n n i n g f i f t h - g r a d e l e v e l of E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g p u p i l s in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The range of most c l u s t e r s c o r e s extends from a low of l e s s than 400 to a high of about 600. A standard score s c a l e , based upon a mean of 100 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 15, i s p r o v i d e d . These standa r d s c o r e s are based on the d i s t a n c e a s u b j e c t ' s c l u s t e r s c o r e i s above or below the average c l u s t e r score f o r the group with which comparison i s b e i n g made (e.g., the s u b j e c t ' s grade placement). A c l u s t e r d i f f e r e n c e score of zero means that the s u b j e c t ' s c l u s t e r score i s the same as the average c l u s t e r score f o r the r e f e r e n c e group. The c o n v e r s i o n t a b l e s can be found i n the Examiner's Manual of the WLPB (Woodcock, 1984). 3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSES Means and sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s performance on the IQ and language measures were computed in order to t e s t the t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the high nonverbal and lower verbal a b i l i t i e s p r o f i l e . For t e s t i n g the second h y p o t h e s i s , that i s , to determine i f performance on the HK-WISC c o u l d be used to p r e d i c t performance on the SB: FE, HK-WISC F u l l S c a l e s c o r e s and SB Test Composite s c o r e s were c o r r e l a t e d . Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were c o n s t r u c t e d to determine the c o r r e l a t i o n s and i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of s u b t e s t and summary s c o r e s . Several stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were performed in order to determine the 45 s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e var iab les ( e . g . , AOA & LOR) on the present psychometric bat tery . The combination of AOA and LOR for regression analyses was e spec ia l ly s i g n i f i c a n t for t e s t ing th i s s tudy's f i r s t hypothesis . Due to the small sample s i z e , several stepwise mult ip le regression analyses were performed instead of us ing one. If a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between a pred ic tor and summary score , ana lys i s of variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between groups. The r e s u l t s are reported in Chapter 4. 46 CHAPTER IV RESULTS T h i s chapter p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s conducted f o r t h i s study. These r e s u l t s i n c l u d e the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r each of the p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s and s u b j e c t s ' performance on the IQ and language measures, Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s of the p r e d i c t o r s and s u b t e s t and summary s c o r e s , r e s u l t s of the stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s , and subsequent o p e r a t i o n s of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) to determine the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups. 4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 4.1.1 Demographic Information In the present study, the f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of each s u b j e c t were i n c l u d e d : age on a r r i v a l (AOA), length of r e s i d e n c e i n Canada (LOR), age of c h i l d (AOC), gender, s c h o o l , grade, f a t h e r ' s h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainment ( f a t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n ) , mother's hi g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainment (mother's e d u c a t i o n ) , f a t h e r ' s occupation (HK), f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada), mother's occupation (HK), mother's occupation (Canada), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e , months of s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h b e f o r e (MSEB), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d Chinese b e f o r e , months of s t u d y i n g Chinese b e f o r e (MSCB), whether the c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g education in Chinese, frequency of s t u d y i n g 47 Chinese (FREQSC), and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home. Table 1 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Some of the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s P r e d i c t o r M SD Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) 9.27 1.29 Length of Residence (LOR) 1 .74 .65 Age of C h i l d (AOC) 11.01 1.18 Months of Stud y i n g E n g l i s h Before (MSEB) 35.75 23.96 Months of Studying Chinese Before (MSCB) 50.00 15.39 Frequency of Studying Chinese (FREQSC) 1 .28 2.90 Note. n = 32 Table 1 shows the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of some of the p r e d i c t o r s . The mean AOA was 9.27 years (with a minimum of 6.42 & a maximum of 11.83 y e a r s ) . The mean LOR was 1.74 years (with a minimum of .67 year & a maximum of 3.17 y e a r s ) . The 32 c h i l d r e n in t h i s study had a mean age of 11.01 years ( r a n g i n g from 9.33 to 13.50 years o l d ) . There were 21 male and 11 female s t u d e n t s . They were a t t e n d i n g grades 4-7 (10 In grade 4, 11 in grade 5, 7 i n grade 6, & 4 in grade 7) at four d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s (8 at Brighouse, 21 at Diefenbaker, 1 at McKinney, & 2 at S t . F r a n c i s X a v i e r ) . Family's socioeconomic s t a t u s (SES) was a l s o i n c l u d e d in the present study. The f a m i l y s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s were p a r e n t s ' h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainments and 48 occu p a t i o n s in Canada and Hong Kong. Table 2 shows the p a r e n t s ' h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainments. Most of the par e n t s (41%) had grade 12/13 e d u c a t i o n . However, more s u b j e c t s ' f a t h e r s (41%) than mothers (16%) had post secondary school t r a i n i n g s . Table 2 Pa r e n t s ' Highest Educational Attainments Parent E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment Father Mother Grade 6 1 3 Grades 7-9 2 5 Grades 10-11 4 5 Grade 12/13 12 14 C o l l e g e / T e c h n i c a l School 4 4 Un i v e r s i ty 9 1 Note. a = 32 Table 3 P a r e n t s ' Occupations Father Mother Occupat ion Canada Hong Kong Canada Hong Kong P r o f e s s i o n a l 7 5 5 5 Manager i a l 18 22 4 4 C I e r i c a l 0 0 4 6 Sal es 3 3 2 3 S e r v i c e 4 2 2 0 Housewi fe 0 0 14 14 Others 0 0 1 0 Note, n = 32 49 As shown In Table 3, most of the s u b j e c t s ' f a t h e r s were in managerial p o s i t i o n s (both in Canada & Hong Kong). On the other hand, most of the mothers were housewives (both in Canada & Hong Kong). Among the s u b j e c t s , 25 (78%) had s t u d i e d E n g l i s h when they were a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l s i n Hong Kong. The d u r a t i o n (MSEB) ranged from 1.50 to 6 years. On the other hand, a l l of these s u b j e c t s had s t u d i e d Chinese b e f o r e they came to Canada. In t h i s case, the d u r a t i o n (MSCB) ranged from 2 to 7 years. When the s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n t h i s study, 10 (31%) of them were s t u d y i n g Chinese. The frequency of t h e i r Chinese lessons (FREQSC) ranged from 2 to 15 hours per week. F i n a l l y , 21 (66%) of the s u b j e c t s ' o f t e n ' speak Cantonese at home, while 11 (34%) 'always' speak Cantonese at home. 4.1.2 Performance on the Hong Kona-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC) Table 4 shows the means and sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of the HK-WISC (Yung, 1981) summary and s u b t e s t s c o r e s . As shown in the t a b l e , s u b j e c t s ' mean F u l l and Performance S c a l e s c o r e s were in the High Average range. On the other hand, t h e i r mean Verbal S c a l e score was in the Average range. S u b j e c t s ' mean Verbal and Performance S c a l e s c o r e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . On the Verbal s u b t e s t s , the s u b j e c t s o b t a i n e d the h i g h e s t mean score on the Comprehension sub t e s t (best performance among a l l the HK-WISC s u b t e s t s ) but the lowest 50 mean score on the A r i t h m e t i c s u b t e s t . On the Performance s u b t e s t s , they o b t a i n e d the hi g h e s t mean score on the Coding subt e s t but the lowest mean score on the P i c t u r e Completion s u b t e s t . O v e r a l l , t h e i r mean subte s t s c o r e s were w i t h i n 1 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n above or below the mean, except on the Comprehension, Block Design, and Coding s u b t e s t s (more than 1 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n above the mean). Table 4 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Scores HK-WISC M. S_D Summary Seal e t a Ful 1 112.41 10.71 Verbal 108.00 12.21 Performance 113.91 11 .73 Subtest:b Informat i on 9.22 2.60 S i m i 1 a r i t i e s 12.88 2.42 A r i t h m e t i c 9.19 2.24 Vocabu1ary 10.53 2.30 Comprehens i on 14.06 3.44 D i g i t Span 11 .03 2.82 P i c t u r e Completion 9.78 2.51 P i c t u r e Arrangement 12.03 3.32 Block Design 13.09 2.93 Object Assembly 12.09 2.96 Coding 13.41 3.73 Mazes 11.25 2.19 Note, a = 32 a - Summary s c o r e s have a mean of 100 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 15. Average range i s 90-109. b - Subtest s c o r e s have a mean of 10 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 3. Average range i s 7-13. 51 4.1.3 Performance on the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : F o u r t h E d i t i o n (SB: FE) T a b l e 5 shows the s u b j e c t s ' performance on the SB: FE ( T h o r n d i k e , Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1986a). T a b l e 5 Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of the SB: FE S c o r e s SB: FE M SD Summary:a Tes t Composite 92. 50 11 . 12 V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g 79. 16 13. 27 A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g 112. 63 13. 42 Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g 96. 25 16. 13 Short-Term Memory 84. 69 13. 35 V e r b a l Comprehension 71 . 84 12. 06 Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l I z a t i o n 104. 94 12. 03 S u b t e s t : b V o c a b u l a r y 37. 00 6. 27 Comprehension 43. 91 7. 77 P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s 56. 00 7. 38 M a t r i c e s 55. 13 7. 73 Quant i t a t i ve 48. 13 8. 07 Bead Memory 52. 16 7. 85 Memory f o r Sentences 34. 69 5. 58 Note, a = 3 2 a - Summary s c o r e s have a mean of 1 0 0 and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1 6 . Average range i s 8 9 - 1 1 0 . b - S u b t e s t s c o r e s have a mean of 5 0 and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 8 . Average range i s 4 2 - 5 8 . These s u b j e c t s ' mean T e s t Composite and Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g s t a n d a r d age s c o r e s (SAS) were i n the Average range. On the o t h e r hand, t h e i r mean V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g and Short-Term Memory SAS were i n the Low Average range. However, t h e i r mean A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS was i n the High Average range. R e g a r d i n g the two f a c t o r s c o r e s ( S a t t l e r , 1988), t h e i r mean V e r b a l Comprehension F a c t o r 52 Score was i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Slow Learner, w h i l e t h e i r mean Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Score was average. T h e i r mean Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Score was 7.32 p o i n t s lower than t h e i r mean Verbal Reasoning SAS. In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r mean Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Score was 7.69 p o i n t s lower than t h e i r mean A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS. O v e r a l l , t h e i r Verbal and Nonverbal summary s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . T h e i r best performance was i n A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning and t h e i r worst performance was in Verbal Comprehension. Among the seven mean subte s t s c o r e s , the f o l l o w i n g were w i t h i n 1 standard deviation, above or below the mean: Comprehension, P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s , M a t r i c e s , Q u a n t i t a t i v e , and Bead Memory s u b t e s t s . However, t h e i r mean Vocabulary s u b t e s t score was more than 1 standar d d e v i a t i o n below the mean. In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r mean Memory f o r Sentences s u b t e s t s c o r e was about 2 standar d d e v i a t i o n s below the mean. In sum, they d i d best on the P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s s u b t e s t and worst on the Memory f o r Sentences s u b t e s t . 4.1.4 D i f f e r e n c e s between S u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores S u b j e c t s ' summary s c o r e s on the HK-WISC and SB: FE were compared in order to o b t a i n a b e t t e r understanding of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c p o t e n t i a l . Comparisons were made between the f o l l o w i n g s c o r e s : F u l l S c a l e ( F S ) , Verbal S c a l e CVS), and Performance S c a l e CPS) of the HK-WISC with Test 53 Composite (TC), Verbal Reasoning (VR), Verbal Comrehenslon (VC), A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning (AVR), and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n (NVRV) of the SB: FE. As shown in Table 6, only one s u b j e c t d i d not have a hig h e r HK F u l l S c a l e than SB Test Composite s c o r e . In f a c t , t h i s was the only s u b j e c t who performed b e t t e r in E n g l i s h than Chinese with r e g a r d to the Verbal and Performance/ Nonverbal s c o r e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the two t e s t composite s c o r e s ranged from 8-46 p o i n t s (M = 19.91 & SD = 11.81). Table 6 S u b j e c t s ' D i f f e r e n c e s on the HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores HK-WISOSB: FE Range FS>TC VS>VR VS>VC PS>AVR PS>NVRV 1-10 4a 1 0 8 10 11-20 12 8 3 7 10 21-30 11 6 7 1 5 31-40 3 7 8 0 0 41-50 1 4 6 0 0 51-60 0 4 4 0 0 61-70 0 0 3 0 0 Note, n = 32 a - Number of S u b j e c t s S u b j e c t s had g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r performance in Verbal (VS>VR: 1-58 & VS>VC: 11-66) than Performance/Nonverbal areas (PS>AVR: 1-24 & PS>NVRV: 1-27). The mean d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r HK Verbal S c a l e and SB Verbal Reasoning s c o r e s was 28.84 (SD_ = 17.99). In 54 a d d i t i o n , the mean d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r HK Verbal S c a l e and SB Verbal Comprehension s c o r e s was 36.16 (SD = 17.37). On the c o n t r a r y , the mean of t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s between the HK Performance S c a l e and SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning s c o r e s was only 1.28 (SD_ = 12.05). In f a c t , 14 (44%) of these s u b j e c t s had a h i g h e r score in SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning. On the other hand, the mean d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r HK Performance S c a l e and SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s was 8.97 (SD = 11.42). In t h i s case, 6 (19%) of them had b e t t e r performance in SB Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i o n . O v e r a l l , these s u b j e c t s " Verbal c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s d i f f e r e d more than Nonverbal a b i l i t i e s with r e g a r d to t h e i r n a t i v e ( L I ) and second (L2) languages. 4.1.5 Performance on the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y Battery (WLPB? On the WLPB (Woodcock, 1984), the s u b j e c t s had a mean standard score of 76.44 (SJD = 12.02) in Oral Language ( P i c t u r e Vocabulary, Antonyms-Synonyms, & A n a l o g i e s ) . In Reading (Letter-Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Word A t t a c k , & Passage Comprehension), t h e i r mean standar d score was 79.34 (S£ = 12.68). In W r i t t e n Language ( D i c t a t i o n & P r o o f i n g ) , they had a mean standard score of 93.88 (SD = 13.03). As a r e s u l t , t h e i r mean Broad Language standard score was 83.66 (SD = 14.36). O v e r a l l , t h e i r mean Oral Language, Reading, and Broad Language standa r d s c o r e s were more than 1 standard d e v i a t i o n (15) below the mean (100), while t h e i r mean 55 performance i n W r i t t e n Language was w i t h i n 1 standard d e v i a t i o n below the mean. 4.2 PEARSON CORRELATION MATRICES Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were computed in order to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between subt e s t and summary s c o r e s . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among i n d i v i d u a l t e s t s were a l s o determined. In a d d i t i o n , a l l the p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s ' i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed. 4.2.1 C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary Scores Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were computed between the IQ and language measures i n order to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e i r summary s c o r e s (see T a b l e s 7-12). The r e s u l t s in T a b l e s 7-9 can be summarized as f o l l o w s . F i r s t , the HK F u l l S c a l e s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the Verbal and Performance S c a l e s c o r e s of the HK-WISC and Test Composite, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s of the SB: FE. Secondly, the HK Verbal S c a l e s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the HK F u l l S c a l e , HK Performance S c a l e and SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning s c o r e s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the HK Verbal S c a l e s c o r e s had no c o r r e l a t i o n with the SB Verbal Reasoning SAS. T h i r d l y , the HK Performance S c a l e s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the F u l l and Verbal Scale s c o r e s of the HK-WISC and Test Composite, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, 56 Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, and Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s of the SB: FE. F i n a l l y , a l l these s c a l e s c o r e s had no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with any of the WLPB standard s c o r e s . O v e r a l l , the HK Verbal Scale s c o r e s had the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the HK F u l l S c a l e s c o r e s <r = .82, p_<.01). Table 7 C o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Summary Scores HK-WISC Seal e HK-WISC Sc a l e Ful 1 Verbal Performance Ful 1 Verbal Performance 1.00 .82** .78** .82** 1.00 .30* .78** .30* 1.00 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 the .01 1 eve 1 1 evel Table 8 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and SB: FE Summary Scores HK-WISC Sc a l e SB: FE F u l l Verbal Performance Test Composite .42** .20 . 48** Verbal Reasoning .06 .00 .07 A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning .29 -.05 .55** Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning .59** .57** .36* Short-Term Memory . 19 -.01 .28 Verbal Comprehension .08 -.02 .14 Nonverbal Reasoning/ Vi s u a l i zat i on .51** .29 .54** Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l 57 Table 9 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and WLPB Summary Scores HK-WISC S c a l e WLPB Ful 1 Verbal Performance Oral Language .23 .26 . 10 Readi ng .06 .07 .02 W r i t t e n Language .20 .25 .06 Broad Language .20 .23 .08 Table 10 C o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE Summary Scores SB: FE SB: FE TC VR AVR QR STM VC NVRV Test Composite (TO 1.00 .64** .74** .66** .75** .77** .91** Verbal Reasoning (VR) .64** 1.00 .27 .19 .47** .92** .33* Abstract/Visual Reasoning (AVR) .74** .27 1.00 .32* .46** .41** .74** Quantitative Reasoning (QR) .66** .19 .32* 1.00 .23 .28 .70** Short-Term Memory (STM) .75** .47** .46** .23 1.00 .68** .75** Verbal Comprehension (VC> .77** .92** .41** .28 .68** 1.00 .49** Nonverbal Reasoning/ Visualization (NVRV) .91** .33* .74** .70** .75** .49** 1.00 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l 58 Table 11 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE and WLPB Summary Scores WLPB SB: FE Oral Language Reading Written Language Broad Language Test Composite .63** .55** .44** .59** Verbal Reasoning .75** .52** .48** .60** Abstract/Visual Reasoning .21 .25 .04 .19 Quantitative Reason i ng .40* .27 ,30* .35* Short-Term Memory .52** .58** .49** .60** Verbal Comprehension .83** .69** .61** .74** Nonverbal Reasoning/ Visualization .40* .39* .29 .42** Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l From T a b l e s 8, 10, and 11, the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s can be noted. F i r s t , the SB Test Composites were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with a l l the HK-WISC, SB:FE, and WLPB summary s c o r e s , except the HK Verbal Scale s c o r e s . Second, the SB Verbal Reasoning s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the Test Composite, Short-Term Memory, Verbal Comprehension, and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s of the SB: FE and a l l the WLPB summary s c o r e s . However, the SB Verbal Reasoning s c o r e s d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with any HK-WISC Sc a l e s c o r e s . T h i r d , the SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the HK Performance S c a l e and Test Composite, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, Short-Term Memory, Verbal Comprehension, and 5 9 Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s of the SB: FE. However, the SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning s c o r e s d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e with the WLPB summary s c o r e s . Fourth, the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the Test Composite, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, and Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e s of the SB: FE and the WLPB standard s c o r e s in Oral Language, W r i t t e n Language, and Broad Language. In a d d i t i o n , a l l the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the HK-WISC Sc a l e s c o r e s . F i f t h , the SB Short-Term Memory s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with a l l the SB: FE (except in Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning) and WLPB summary s c o r e s . However, these memory sc o r e s d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with the HK-WISC Sc a l e s c o r e s . S i x t h , the SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l the SB: FE summary s c o r e s (except i n Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning) and a l l the WLPB summary s c o r e s . However, these f a c t o r s c o r e s d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the HK-WISC Sc a l e s c o r e s . F i n a l l y , the Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the HK F u l l S c a l e , HK Performance S c a l e , and WLPB standard s c o r e s in Oral Language, Reading, and Broad Language. Moreover, these f a c t o r s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l the SB: FE summary s c o r e s . O v e r a l l , the Nonverbal Reasoning/ 60 V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s had the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the SB Test Composites <r = .91, p_<.01>. Table 12 C o r r e l a t i o n s of the WLPB Summary Scores WLPB WLPB Oral Language Reading Wri t t e n Language Broad Language Oral Language 1.00 .76** .72** .89** Reading .76** 1.00 .78** .93** Writt e n Language .72** .78** 1.00 .87** Broad Language .89** .93** .87** 1.00 Note. ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l As shown in Table 12, the WLPB summary s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with each o t h e r . However, the Reading standa r d s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the Broad Language standar d s c o r e s <£. = .93, p_<.01). 4.2.2 C o r r e l a t i o n s between Subtest Scores A Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was computed in order to determine the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and SB: FE s u b t e s t s . 61 Table 13 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC and SB: FE Subtests SB: FE HK-WISC VOCAB COMP PANALYSIS MATRICES QUANT BMEM0RY SMEMORY Verbal: Information -.23 .15 -.22 .17 .55** -.02 -.08 Similarities .04 .17 -.01 .16 .48** .13 .05 Arithmetic .07 .15 .11 .13 .36* .24 .10 Vocabu1ary -.21 .14 -.28 .01 .36* -.22 -.14 Comprehension -.20 -.02 -.24 .00 .38* -.03 -.11 Digit Span -.06 .23 .28 .05 .18 .34* .34* Performance: Picture Completion -.22 .05 -.03 .05 .33* .09 .00 Picture Arrangement .10 .01 -.04 .45** .35* .22 .17 Block Design .28 .57** .67** .44** .24 .49** .46** Object Assembl Iy-.31* -.27 .35* .37* .22 .14 -.05 Coding -.02 .06 .05 .05 -.12 -.19 .00 Nazes .21 .31* .15 .26 .27 .37* .23 Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l T able 13 shows s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , the P i c t u r e Completion, P i c t u r e Arrangement, and a l l the Verbal s u b t e s t s c o r e s (except D i g i t Span) of the HK-WISC had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e (QUANT) su b t e s t s c o r e s . Second, the D i g i t Span and Block Design s u b t e s t s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the SB Bead Memory (BMEMORY) and Memory f o r Sentences (SMEMORY) subte s t s c o r e s . T h i r d , the P i c t u r e Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly s u b t e s t s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the SB M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t s c o r e s . Fourth, only the s c o r e s on Block Design and Mazes s u b t e s t s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the SB Comprehension (COMP) subte s t s c o r e s . F i f t h , the 62 Block Design and Object Assembly subt e s t s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the SB P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s (PANALYSIS) su b t e s t s c o r e s . S i x t h , only the s c o r e s on the Object Assembly s u b t e s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d (the only s i g n i f i c a n t n e g ative c o r r e l a t i o n ) with the SB Vocabulary (VOCAB) su b t e s t s c o r e s . F i n a l l y , only the sc o r e s on the Coding sub t e s t d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with any SB: FE su b t e s t s c o r e s . 4.2.3 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE Subtest and WLPB Summary Scores Table 14 p r e s e n t s the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , the SB Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Memory f o r Sentences s u b t e s t s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l the WLPB summary s c o r e s . Secondly, the sc o r e s on the SB P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s s u b t e s t only had a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with the Reading standa r d s c o r e s . T h i r d l y , the SB M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t s c o r e s d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with the WLPB summary s c o r e s . F o u r t h l y , the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the WLPB summary s c o r e s (except i n Reading). F i n a l l y , the SB Bead Memory sub t e s t s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the WLPB Reading and Broad Language standar d s c o r e s . O v e r a l l , the Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t s c o r e s had the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l the WLPB summary s c o r e s . 6 3 T a b l e 14 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE S u b t e s t and WLPB Summary S c o r e s WLPB SB: FE Oral Language Reading Written Language Broad Language Vocabu1ary .70** .54** .43** .57** Comprehension .61** .37* .40* .48** Pattern Analysis .25 .34* .16 .26 Matrices .09 .09 -.07 .06 Quantitative .40* .27 .30* .35* Bead Memory .23 .30* .25 .33* Memory for Sentences .75** .76** .66** .75** Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t a t the .01 l e v e l 4.2.4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of S u b t e s t and Summary S c o r e s Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were computed i n o r d e r t o dete r m i n e the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC and SB: FE s c o r e s . As shown i n T a b l e 15, the HK I n f o r m a t i o n s u b t e s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the HK F u l l <r_ = .69, P_<.01> and V e r b a l <£. = .87, p_<.01> S c a l e s c o r e s . On the o t h e r hand, the HK P i c t u r e Arrangement s u b t e s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the HK Performance S c a l e s c o r e s ( r = .60, p_<.01). O v e r a l l , the h i g h e s t s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the HK V e r b a l S c a l e and I n f o r m a t i o n s u b t e s t s c o r e s (jr = .87, p_<.01>. 64 Table 15 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the HK-WISC Subtest and Summary Scores HK-WISC Summary S c a l e HK-WISC Subtest Ful 1 Verbal Performance V e r b a l : Information .69tttt . 87tttt .21 S i m i l a r l t i e s .64tttt .71tttt .33tt Ar i thmet i c .40tt ,50tttt . 15 Vocabulary .57tttt .76tttt .12 Comprehensi on .65tttt • 80tttt .23 D i g i t Span -.14 -.10 -.14 Performance: P i c t u r e Completion . eotttt ,49tttt .51tttt P i c t u r e Arrangement .59tttt .35tt .60tttt Block Design .37tt .08 .54tttt Object Assembly .28 -.02 .55tttt Codi ng .28 - .04 .47tttt Mazes .03 -.09 .15 Note. tt - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l tttt - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l Table 16 shows only the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC subte s t s c o r e s . For the ful1 matrix, p l e a s e r e f e r to Appendix C. As shown in t h i s t a b l e , among the HK Verbal s u b t e s t s , the Information and Comprehension sub t e s t s c o r e s had the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n <r = .68, p_<.01). T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was a l s o the h i g h e s t among a l l the HK-WISC su b t e s t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Between the Verbal and Performance s u b t e s t s c o r e s , both c o r r e l a t i o n s between the S i m i l a r i t i e s and P i c t u r e Arrangement sub t e s t s c o r e s and Comprehension and P i c t u r e Completion s u b t e s t s c o r e s were hi g h e s t <r = .45, p_<.01 i n both c a s e s ) . On the other hand, the Performance sub t e s t s c o r e s had no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with each o t h e r . Table 16 S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the HK-WISC Subtest Scores HK-WISC HK-WISC INFO SIM ARITH VOCAB COMP DS PC PA BD OA COD MAZ Verbal: Information (INFO) — .41** .42** .62** .68** —.40* — — — — Similaritles (SIM) .41** — — .46** .50** —.43**.45**— — — Arithmetic (ARITH) .42** — — — — — — — .36* — — — Vocabulary (VOCAB) .62**.46** — — .46** — — Comprehension (COMP) .68**. 50** — .46** — —.45** Digit Span (DS) — — — — — — — Performance: Picture Completion (PC) .40* .43** — — .45** — — Picture Arrangement (PA) — .45** — — — — — Block Design (BD) — — .36* — — — — Object Assembly (OA) — — — — — — — Coding (COD) — — — — — — — Mazes (MAZ) — — — — — — — Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l 66 Table 17 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the SB: FE Subtest and Summary Scores SB: FE Summary SB: FE Subtest TCOM VERBR ABSTRACT QUANT S-TMEMORY VERBC NVERBAL Vocabulary .52** .83** .21 .10 .41** .81** .21 Comprehension .58** .89** .26 .23 .41** .78** .35* Pattern Analysis.65** .33* .78** .25 .46** .45** .59** Matrices .54** .09 .79** .29 .29 .20 .59** Quantitative .66** .19 .32* 1.00 .23 .28 .70** Bead Memory .53** .24 .31* .10 .90** .36* .67** Memory for Sentences .77** .63** .49** .32* .79** .88** .57** Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l Table 17 p r e s e n t s the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , the SB Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t s c o r e s had the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the SB Test Composite (TCOM) (£ = .77, p_<.01) and Verbal Comprehension (VERBC) Fac t o r ( r = .88, p_<.01) s c o r e s . Secondly, the SB Comprehension subte s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the SB Verbal Reasoning (VERBR) SAS (r_ = .89, p_<.01). T h i r d l y , the SB M a t r i c e s s u b t e s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning (ABSTRACT) SAS ( r = .79, p<.01). F o u r t h l y , the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the SB Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i o n (NVERBAL) F a c t o r s c o r e s (jr. = .70, p_<.01). F i n a l l y , b e s i d e s the p e r f e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between the SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t and Q u a n t i t a t i v e (QUANT) Reasoning s c o r e s , the h i g h e s t s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the 67 SB Bead Memory subte s t and Short-Term Memory (S-TMEMORY) summary s c o r e s ( r = .90, p_<.01). Table 18 S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB; FE Subtest Scores SB: FE SB: FE VOCAB COMP PANALYSIS MATRICES QUANT BMEMORY SMEMORY Vocabulary (VOCAB) — .49** .36* — — — .62** Comprehension (COMP) .49** — — ~ — ~ .49** Pattern Analysis (PANALYSIS) .36* — — — — — .52** Matrices (MATRICES) Quantitative (QUANT) — — — — — — .32* Bead Memory (BMEMORY) — — ~ — — — .43** Memory for Sentences .62** .49** .52** — .32* .43** (SMEMORY) Note• * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l Table 18 only p r e s e n t s the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE su b t e s t s c o r e s . For the f u l l m a t r i x, p l e a s e r e f e r to Appendix D. As shown i n t h i s t a b l e , the hi g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the SB Vocabulary and Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t s c o r e s (r_ = .62, p_<.01). In f a c t , Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with a l l the other SB: FE subte s t s c o r e s (except M a t r i c e s ) . 68 4.2.5 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s The f o l l o w i n g only mentions some of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the p r e d i c t o r s . For a l l the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , p l e a s e r e f e r to Appendices E and F. The 19 p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s can be grouped i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s : (1) general (AOA, LOR, age of c h i l d , gender, s c h o o l , & grade); (2) SES ( p a r e n t s ' education & p a r e n t s ' o c c u p a t i o n s in Canada & Hong Kong); and (3) language (whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d Chinese or E n g l i s h b e f o r e , months of s t u d y i n g Chinese or E n g l i s h b e f o r e , whether the c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g education in Chinese, frequency of s t u d y i n g Chinese, 8. frequency of speaking Cantonese at home). Among the general v a r i a b l e s , i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of AOA and age of c h i l d was h i g h e s t (jr = .86, p_<,01). AOA and LOR a l s o had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y high c o r r e l a t i o n (r. = -.42, p_<.01). Among the SES v a r i a b l e s , the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of f a t h e r ' s occupation i n Canada and Hong Kong was h i g h e s t ( r = .84, p_<.01). Among the language v a r i a b l e s , whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e and months of s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h before had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n ( r = .80, p_<.01). 4.3 STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES D i f f e r e n t stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were computed in order to determine the s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of the s u b j e c t s ' performance. P r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s that were i n c l u d e d in the v a r i o u s a n a l y s e s were: 69 age on a r r i v a l (AOA), length of r e s i d e n c e (LOR), age of c h i l d (AOC), gender, s c h o o l , grade, f a t h e r ' s h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainment ( f a t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n ) , mother's h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l attainment (mother's e d u c a t i o n ) , f a t h e r ' s occupation (HK), f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada), mother's occupation (HK), mother's occupation (Canada), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e , months of s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h b e f o r e (MSEB), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d Chinese b e f o r e , months of s t u d y i n g Chinese b e f o r e (MSCB), whether the c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g education in Chinese, frequency of s t u d y i n g Chinese (FREQSC), and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home. Since the sample s i z e was small (32 s u b j e c t s ) , groups of only two or three v a r i a b l e s were used as p r e d i c t o r s in each of the stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . F i n d i n g s are given below f o r only those s i g n i f i c a n t r e g r e s s i o n s y i e l d i n g p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . For the r e s u l t s of a l l the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s computed, p l e a s e r e f e r to Appendix G. In the present study, the stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s f o l l o w e d three s t a g e s . F i r s t , the 19 p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were grouped in two or t h r e e ' s to determine t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n p r e d i c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' performance. In t h i s stage, the combination of AOA and LOR f o r the a n a l y s e s was u s e f u l to t e s t the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s that these two v a r i a b l e s and performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s would be c o r r e l a t e d . 70 Secondly, s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s that were i d e n t i f i e d i n Stage 1 were grouped f o r f u r t h e r stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses to determine t h e i r combined p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s . F i n a l l y , the s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s that were i d e n t i f i e d i n Stage 1 were combined i n d i v i d u a l l y with AOA and LOR to determine t h e i r combined e f f e c t s in p r e d i c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' performance. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s in Stages 2 and 3 were f o r e x p l o r a t o r y purposes. 4.3.1 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the HK-WISC S c a l e Scores I n i t i a l l y , AOA and LOR were p a i r e d , w hile gender was p a i r e d with age of c h i l d (AOC) f o r stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . As shown in Table 19, only gender was s i g n i f i c a n t enough to enter the p r e d i c t i o n equation f o r s u b j e c t s ' Verbal Scale s c o r e s (Rsg = .16, p_<.05>. It should be noted that s i n c e every s u b j e c t had s t u d i e d Chinese b e f o r e , r squares c o u l d not be computed because there were no v a r i a t i o n s . 71 Table 19 R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and HK-WISC Scale Scores Predictor HK-WISC Scale Full Verbal Performance Age on Arrival .03 .04 .01 Length of Residence .06 .10 .02 Age of Child .00 .00 .00 Gender .05 .16* .00 School .00 .01 .00 Grade .01 .01 .00 Father's Education .00 .07 .04 Mother's Education .00 .02 .07 Father's Occupation (HK) .00 .00 .02 Mother's Occupation (HK) .04 .02 .04 Father's Occupation (Canada) .00 .00 .00 Mother's Occupation (Canada) .01 .02 .00 Studied English Before .01 .01 .00 Months of Studying English Before .01 .00 .01 Studied Chinese Before X X X Months of Studying Chinese Before .01 .01 .00 Receiving Education in Chinese .07 .04 .05 Frequency of Studying Chinese .02 .00 .05 Frequency of Speaking Cantonese .01 .02 .11 Note. x - R squares cannot be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Since AOA and LOR were h y p o t h e s i z e d to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s u b j e c t s ' performance, they were combined with gender to compute a d d i t i o n a l r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . Table 20 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s f o r s u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e s c o r e s . Gender entered the equation f i r s t ; subsequently, AOA and LOR were not s i g n i f i c a n t enough to enter the equ a t i o n . However, the combination of these two v a r i a b l e s with gender d i d i n c r e a s e the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y from 16 to 26%. O v e r a l l , AOA, LOR, and gender were the only 72 s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r s u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e s c o r e s . Table 20 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with AOA. LOR, and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender .39 . 16 . 16 5.52* 5.52 2 LOR > .51 .26 .10 3.23* 1.92 AOA Fu11 Equ . A l l Three .51 .26 .26 3.23* 3.23 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 4.3.2 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the SB: FE Summary Scores On the SB: FE, more s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were found than f o r the HK-WISC. Table 21 shows the r squares of a l l the p r e d i c t o r s and s u b j e c t s ' SB: FE Summary s c o r e s . Again, r squares of whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d Chinese be f o r e and performance on the SB: FE c o u l d not be computed due to lack of v a r i a b i l i t i e s . R e s u l t s of the stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s in Stage 1 r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s . 73 Table 21 R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and S u b j e c t s ' SB: FE Summary Scores Predictor SB: FE Summary Scale TCOM VERBR ABSTRACT QUANT STMEMORY VERBC NVERBAL Age on Arrival .03 .08 .08 .04 .03 .08 .00 Length of Residence .05 .12 .06 .00 .01 .13* .00 Age of Child .00 .01 .03 .04 .02 .01 .00 Gender .04 .00 .01 .20** .01 .00 .06 School .01 .01 .00 .00 .05 .01 .01 Grade .00 .00 .04 .06 .00 .00 .00 Father's Education .01 .03 .04 .01 .01 .03 .05 Mother's Education .00 .12 .02 .01 .01 .13* .02 Father's Occupation (HK) .04 .00 .00 .01 .17* .03 .05 Mother's Occupation (HK) .01 .00 .00 .07 .01 .01 .02 Father's Occupation (Canada) .03 .01 .00 .02 .13* .00 .07 Mother's Occupation (Canada) .05 .14* .01 .00 .08 .15* .01 Studied English Before .03 .11 .02 .00 .02 .13* .00 Months of Studying English Before .03 .07 .00 .04 .01 .08 .01 Studied Chinese Before X X X X X X X Months of Studying Chinese Before .00 .00 .02 .04 .01 .01 .00 Receiving Education in Chinese .01 .03 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01 Frequency of Studying Chinese .04 .04 .02 .00 .01 .02 .02 Frequency of Speaking Cantonese .10 .13* .08 .01 .10 .10 .05 Note. x - R squares cannot be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l F i r s t , mother's occupation (Canada) and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home were s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS (VERBR). It shou l d be noted that frequency of speaking Cantonese at home 74 had a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS ( r = -.36, p_<.05). Secondly, gender was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e of s u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS (QUANT). T h i r d l y , f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n s in Canada and Hong Kong were s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of s u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS (STMEMORY). F i n a l l y , LOR, mother's ed u c a t i o n , mother's occupation (Canada), and whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h before were the s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s (VERBC). O v e r a l l , no s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s were found f o r s u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composite (TCOM), A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning (ABSTRACT), and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r (NVERBAL) s c o r e s . Table 22 shows the only s i g n i f i c a n t combined p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n Stage 1. As shown in t h i s t a b l e , gender and age of c h i l d (AOC) were s i g n i f i c a n t in p r e d i c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS. Gender ent e r e d the equation f i r s t and accounted f o r 20% of the r square change. The i n c l u s i o n of AOC i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t i v e value by 1%. 75 Table 22 Mu11 i P1e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with Gender and Age of C h i l d (AOC) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender .45 .20 .20 7.64** 7.64 2 AOC .47 .21 .01 4.01* .50 Fu11 Equ Both .47 .21 .21 4.01* 4.01 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l In the second stage, LOR, mother's e d u c a t i o n , mother's occupation (Canada), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e , and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home were combined ( i n groups of t h r e e ' s ) to determine t h e i r p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s of the s u b j e c t s ' Verbal performance ( i n Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension). Moreover, f a t h e r ' s occupation (HK) and f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada) were combined to compute r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s to determine i f t h e i r p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d . However, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s with t h i s combination. The f o l l o w i n g were the s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s of the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s f o r s u b j e c t s ' performance in Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension (see T a b l e s 23-33). 76 Table 23 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR. Mother's Education (ME), and Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO .39 . 15 .15 5.40* 5.40 2 LOR > .49 .24 .09 2.97* 1 .63 ME Fu11 Equ. Al1 Three .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.97 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l The r e s u l t s in Table 23 i n d i c a t e d that among the three v a r i a b l e s , mother's occupation (Canada) was the best p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e . In a d d i t i o n , the combination of these three v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e d to 24% of the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y f o r the s u b j e c t s ' performance i n Verbal Comprehension. Table 24 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. Mother's Education (ME), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 .13 .13 4.51* 4.51 2 LOR .50 .25 .12 4.92* 4.77 3 ME .57 .33 .08 4.57* 3.13 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .57 .33 .33 4.57* 4.57 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 1 evel t Tabl e 24 shows that frequency of speak i ng Cantonese at home had the h i g h e s t p r e d i c t ive value among these v a r i a b il es. 77 The c o m b i n a t i o n o f LOR a n d t h i s v a r i a b l e a c c o u n t e d f o r 2 5 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e s i n t h e s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i n c l u s i o n o f m o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e d t h e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y t o 3 3 % . T a b l e 25 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r t h e S u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h LOR. M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n ( M E ) , a n d F r e q u e n c y o f S p e a k i n g C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. S t e p V a r i a b l e ( s ) M u l t R R s q RsqCh F FCh ~1 ME 737 7l3 Tl3 4.68* 4.68 2 FSCH > .57 .32 .19 4.43* 3.86 LOR F u l l E qu. A l l T h r e e .57 .32 .32 4.43* 4.43 N o t e . * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l A s shown i n T a b l e 2 5 , m o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n h a d t h e h i g h e s t p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . M o r e o v e r , t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s a c c o u n t e d f o r 3 2 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e s i n s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s . T a b l e 26 r e v e a l s t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , m o t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n ( C a n a d a ) h a d t h e b e s t p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . S e c o n d , t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s was a b l e t o p r e d i c t 2 7 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e s o f s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e i n V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g . 78 Table 26 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 . 14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 FSCH > .52 .27 . 13 3.45* 2.56 LOR Fu 1 1 Equ . A l l Three .52 .27 .27 3.45* 3.45 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 1 evel Table 27 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR. Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 . 15 . 15 5.40* 5.40 2 FSCH > .51 .26 .11 3.26* 2.00 LOR Fu 1 1 Equ. A l l Three .51 .26 .26 3.26* 3.26 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l The r e s u l t s in Table 27 i n d i c a t e d that mother's occupation i n Canada had the hi g h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y among these v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n , these three v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r 26% of the v a r i a n c e s in s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s . 79 Table 28 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the Subjects'' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 . 13 .13 4.51* 4.51 2 LOR .50 .25 .12 4.92* 4.77 3 SEB .54 .29 .04 3.91* 1.67 Fu 1 1 Equ. Al1 Three .54 .29 .29 3.91* 3.91 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l As shown in Table 28, frequency of speaking Cantonese at home had the hig h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Moreover, when LOR was combined with t h i s v a r i a b l e , the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d from 13 to 25%. Furthermore, the combination of these three v a r i a b l e s i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y to 29%. Table 29 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR. S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 .13 .13 4.53* 4.53 2 FSCH > .54 .29 . 16 3.79* 3.10 LOR F u l l Equ. A l l Three .54 .29 .29 3.79* 3.79 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Based on the resu I t s in Table 29, among the three v a r i a b l e s , whether the chi Id s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e was the 80 best p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e . A l s o , the combination of these three v a r i a b l e s was able to p r e d i c t 29% of the v a r i a n c e s in s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s . Table 30 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with Mother's Education (ME). Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 . 14 4.73* 4.73 2 FSCH > .49 .24 .10 3.01* 2.00 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 3.01* 3.01 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 31 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with Mother's Education (ME). Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 15 .15 5.40* 5 .40 2 FSCH > .49 24 .09 2.98* 1 .65 ME Fu11 Equ. A l l Three .49 24 .24 2.98* 2 .98 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l As shown in Ta b l e s 30 and 31 , mother's occupation i n Canada had the hi g h e s t p r e d i c t a b i 1i t i e s among these three 81 v a r i a b l e s (14% i n Verbal Reasoning & 15% in Verbal Comprehension). In a d d i t i o n , the i n c l u s i o n of frequency of speaking Cantonese at home and mother's education i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s in both cases (10% ln Verbal Reasoning & 9% in Verbal Comprehension). Table 32 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the Subjects 7' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with Mother's Education (ME). S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 .13 . 13 4.51* 4.51 2 ME > .50 .25 .12 3.15* 2.28 SEB Ful1 Equ. Al1 Three .50 .25 .25 3.15* 3.15 Note. tt - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 1 eve 1 Table 33 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal 1 Comprehension F a c t o r Scores wi th Mother' s Educat ion (ME). St u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Frequency of Speak i ng Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME .37 .13 .13 4.68* 4.68 2 FSCH > .50 .25 . 12 3.14* 2.18 SEB F u l l Equ. A l l Three .50 .25 .25 3.14* 3.14 Note. tt - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 82 T a b l e s 32 and 33 present the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s f o r the s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning and Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . As shown in Table 32, frequency of speaking Cantonese at home had the h i g h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y (13%) among the three v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n , the combination of a l l these v a r i a b l e s i n c r e a s e d t h i s p r e d i c t i v e value by 12%. On the other hand, based on Table 33, mother's education had the best p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s . The i n c l u s i o n of the other two v a r i a b l e s d i d i n c r e a s e the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y (from 13 to 25%). The l a s t stage i n v o l v e d the combination of AOA and LOR with the s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d in Stage 1. Since t h i s study h y p o t h e s i z e d that AOA and LOR were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s u b j e c t s ' performance, the combination of these two v a r i a b l e s with the s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e the p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s . T a b l e s 34 and 35 show the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses with AOA, LOR, and mother's education f o r the s u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . As shown i n Table 34, only the combination of a l l these v a r i a b l e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e value (Rsq = .24, p_<.05). On the other hand, Table 35 p r e s e n t s the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , mother's education e n t e r e d the equation and accounted f o r 13% of the r square change. Then 83 the combination with AOA and LOR Increased the r square value to .26 (p_<.05). Table 34 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and Mother's Education (ME) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME \ AOA > .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.97 LOR / F u l l Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.97 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 35 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and Mother's Education (ME) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME .37 .13 .13 4.68* 4.68 2 AOA > .51 .26 .13 3.33* 2.43 LOR F u l l Equ. A l l Three .51 .26 .26 3.33* 3.33 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 36 shows the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s f o r the s u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS. F a t h e r ' s occupat ion in HK en t e r e d the equation f i r s t . Although AOA and LOR were not s e l e c t e d i n t o the equation, combining these two 84 v a r i a b l e s with f a t h e r ' s occupation d i d in c r e a s e the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y by 8%. Table 36 Mu11 i P1e R e a r e s s i on A n a l v s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Short -Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR. and Fath e r ' s Occupation i n Honq Kona < FHKO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKO .42 .17 .17 6.36* 6.36 2 LOR > .50 .25 .08 3.11* 1 .40 AOA F u l l Equ. A l l Three .50 .25 .25 3.11* 3.11 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 37 r e v e a l s the f i n d i n g that the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the s u b j e c t s ' performance in Short-Term Memory was i n c r e a s e d from 13 to 24% when f a t h e r ' s occupation was combined with AOA. In t h i s a n a l y s i s , f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada) was s e l e c t e d i n t o the equation f i r s t , w h i l e AOA and LOR were not s e l e c t e d . In Step 2, AOA was combined with f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada) and r e s u l t e d in an in c r e a s e in p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . In Step 3, LOR was a l s o i n c l u d e d , but t h i s v a r i a b l e only i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y n e g l i g i b l y (RsqCh = .00004, p_<.05). 85 Table 37 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and F a t h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq Cum. RsqCh F FCh 1 FCO .36 .13 2 AOA .49 .24 3 LOR .49 .24 .13 4.47* .11 4.66* .00 3.00* 4.47 4.34 .002 F u l l Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 3.00* 3.00 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l F i n a l l y , Table 38 p r e s e n t s the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s . F i r s t , frequency of speaking Cantonese at home had the hig h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y (Rsq = .13, p_<. 05). Secondly, the combination of t h i s v a r i a b l e with LOR i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y to 25%. F i n a l l y , the a d d i t i o n of AOA s l i g h t l y (1%) i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . Table 38 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' SB Verba' 1 Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq Cum. RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 .13 2 LOR .50 .25 3 AOA .51 .26 .13 4.51* .12 4.92* .01 3.30* 4.51 4.77 .30 F u l l Equ. A l l Three .51 .26 .26 3.30* 3.30 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 86 In summary, the combinations of AOA and LOR with mother's education in p r e d i c t i n g SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s and with frequency of speaking Cantonese at home in p r e d i c t i n g SB Verbal Reasoning SAS both p r o v i d e d the hig h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y (both from 13 to 26%). Moreover, the combination of gender and age of c h i l d (AOC) had the best p r e d i c t a b i l i t y f o r s u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS (Rsq = .21, p_<.05). Furthermore, f a t h e r ' s occupation (HK) was the best p r e d i c t o r of s u b j e c t s ' Short-Term Memory SAS (Rsq = .17, p_<.05). On the other hand, no p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d f o r the s u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composite, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, or Nonverbal Reasoning F a c t o r s c o r e s . O v e r a l l , the combination of LOR, mother's educat i o n , and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home pr o v i d e d the best p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s of s u b j e c t s ' performance in SB Verbal Reasoning (33%) and Verbal Comprehension (32%). 4.3.3 M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses on the WLPB Standard Scores On the WLPB, two s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s : AOA and whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e were i d e n t i f i e d in Stage 1. Table 39 pr e s e n t s the r squares of a l l the p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s and s u b j e c t s ' WLPB standard s c o r e s . Due to lack of v a r i a t i o n s , r squares c o u l d not be computed f o r whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d Chinese before and the WLPB performance. 87 Table 39 R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s and S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Standard Scores WLPB Summary Scale Oral Predictor Language Reading Written Language Broad Language Age on Arrival .09 .15* .03 .14* Length of Residence .06 .03 .00 .01 Age of Child .04 .11 .05 .12 Gender .01 .01 .08 .00 School .02 .00 .00 .00 Grade .00 .03 .01 .03 Father's Education .08 .01 .04 .02 Mother's Education .11 .03 .10 .05 Father's Occupation (HK) .00 .02 .03 .01 Mother's Occupation (HK) .00 .03 .00 .01 Father's Occupation (Canada) .02 .00 .00 .00 Mother's Occupation (Canada) .01 .00 .02 .00 Studied English Before .13* .03 .09 .07 Months of Studying English Before .07 .00 .06 .02 Studied Chinese Before X X X X Months of Studying Chinese Before .03 .07 .01 .04 Receiving Education in Chinese .00 .00 .00 .00 Frequency of Studying Chinese .01 .00 .01 .01 Frequency of Speaking Cantonese .03 .01 .02 .03 Note. x - R squares cannot be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l As shown in Table 40, AOA was p a i r e d with LOR f o r the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . AOA c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with s u b j e c t s ' Reading stand a r d s c o r e s ( r = -.38, p_<.05). In a d d i t i o n , AOA ente r e d the equation f i r s t , w h i l e LOR was not s e l e c t e d to enter the equation. Furthermore, the combination of these two v a r i a b l e s d i d not change the p r e d i c t i v e power (Rsq remained unchanged). 88 Table 40 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Reading Standard Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .38 .15 .15 5.21* 5.21 2 LOR .38 .15 .00 2.52 .00 Fu11 Equ Both .38 .15 .15 2.52 2.52 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 41 Mu11 ip1e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Broad Language Standard Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .37 .14 .14 4.68* 4.68 2 LOR .37 . 14 .00 2.31 .09 Fu 1 1 Equ Both .37 . 14 .14 2.31 2.31 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l Table 41 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s f o r the s u b j e c t s ' Broad Language standard s c o r e s with AOA and LOR. In t h i s case, AOA a l s o e n t e r e d the equation f i r s t , w h i l e LOR was not s e l e c t e d to enter the equation. In a d d i t i o n , the combination of these two v a r i a b l e s d i d not change the p r e d i c t i v e power e i t h e r <Rsq remained unchanged). It sh o u l d be noted that AOA had a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n with the s u b j e c t s ' Broad Language standa r d s c o r e s <r = -.37, p_<.01). 89 Table 42 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s f o r the subjects'' Oral Language standa r d s c o r e s with whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e (SEB) and months of s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h b e f o r e (MSEB). As shown in t h i s t a b l e , SEB had a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with the s u b j e c t s ' Oral Language standard s c o r e s ( r = .36, p_<.05). In t h i s a n a l y s i s , SEB en t e r e d the equation f i r s t , w h i l e MSEB was not s e l e c t e d to enter the equation. Moreover, the combination of these two v a r i a b l e s d i d not change the p r e d i c t i v e power (Rsq remained unchanged). Table 42 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Oral Language Standard Scores with SEB and MSEB Entered Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Cum. MultR Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 SEB 2 MSEB .36 .13 .37 .13 .13 .00 4.60* 2.27 4.60 .08 F u l l Equ. Both .37 .13 . 13 2.27 2.27 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l In order to in c r e a s e the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of AOA and SEB, they were combined f o r more r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . As shown in Table 43, the i n c l u s i o n of AOA had i ncreased the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y by 6%. Thus, the combination of these two p r e d i c t o r s accounted f o r 19% of the s u b j e c t s ' v a r i a b i l i t y in Oral Language. However, i t should be noted that SEB had a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( r = .36, p_<.05), while 90 AOA had a s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p Cjr = -.30, p_<.05) with s u b j e c t s ' performance in Oral Language. F i n a l l y , i t sh o u l d be noted that LOR was combined to these two v a r i a b l e s f o r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . However, no s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s were obt a i n e d . Table 43 M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Oral Language Standard Scores with AOA and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 .13 .13 4.60* 4.60 2 AOA .44 . 19 .06 3.45* 2.12 Ful 1 Equ. Both .44 .19 . 19 3.45* 3.45 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 4.4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) ANOVA was c a r r i e d out when a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between a p r e d i c t o r and summary s c o r e . On the HK-WISC, ANOVA was used to determine i f male and female st u d e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the HK Verbal Scale s u b t e s t s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that males CM = 13.62 & SD = 1.91) d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than females CM = 11.45 8. SD = 2.73) on the S i m i l a r i t i e s s u b t e s t , FC 1, 30) = 6.87, p_< . 01 . On the SB: FE, the f o l l o w i n g were found. F i r s t , male s u b j e c t s CM = 50.71 & SD = 8.52) performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than female s u b j e c t s CM = 43.18 & SD = 3.97) on the 91 SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t , F( 1, 30) = 7.64, p_<.01. Secondly, s u b j e c t s with mothers having d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l attainments (see Table 44) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r performance on the SB Vocabulary, F(5, 26) = 3.25, p_<.05 and Comprehension s u b t e s t s , £(5, 26) = 2.99, p_<.05. S u b j e c t s with mothers having e d u c a t i o n a l attainment in the ' C o l l e g e or T e c h n i c a l S c h o o l ' category s c o r e d h i g h e s t , while those with mothers in the 'Grade 6' category s c o r e d lowest on both s u b t e s t s . Table 44 S u b j e c t s ' Performance with Regard to Mother's Education SB: FE Subtest Educa t i o n a l Attainment Vocabulary Comprehension Grade 6 28.67a, 4.04b 31.33, 5.51 Grades 7-9 41.00 , 2.45 46.80, 5.02 Grades 10-11 36.20 , 3.96 43.40, 9.02 Grade 12/13 35.79 , 6.80 44.57, 7.11 C o l l e g e / T e c h n i c a l School 43.25 , 3.20 49.50, 3.87 U n i v e r s i t y 38.00 , 0.00 38.00, 0.00 Note, n = 32 a - Mean Score b - Standard D e v i a t i o n T h i r d l y , s u b j e c t s with f a t h e r s having d i f f e r e n t o c c upations d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the SB Bead Memory s u b t e s t , F(3, 28) = 3.52, p_<.05. As shown in Table 45, the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that s u b j e c t s with f a t h e r s as p r o f e s s i o n a l s s c o r e d h i g h e s t , while those with f a t h e r s as salesmen s c o r e d lowest. F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s who 'always' 92 speak Cantonese at home CM = 40.00 & SD_ = 4.52) s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those who ' o f t e n ' speak Cantonese at home CM = 45.95 & SD = 8.41) on the SB Comprehension su b t e s t £C1, 30) = 4.75, p_<.05. O v e r a l l , s u b j e c t s ' performance d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r with r e g a r d to LOR, f a t h e r ' s occupation CHK), mother's occupation CCanada), and whether they s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e . Table 45 S u b j e c t s ' SB Bead Memory Subtest Scores with Regard to Fa t h e r ' s Occupation CCanada) Bead Memory Subtest Occupation M SD P r o f e s s i o n a l 55.29 9.05 Managerial 53.44 7.07 S a l e s 40.67 2.52 S e r v i c e 49.50 3.32 Note. n = 32 F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of the ANOVA on the WLPB i n d i c a t e d that c h i l d r e n who had s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e CM = 78.72 & SD = 9.03), r e g a r d l e s s of d u r a t i o n , performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r i n Oral Language than those who had not CM. = 68.29 & SD = 17.93), £C1, 30) = 4.60, p_<.05. On the c o n t r a r y , t h e i r performance d i d not d i f f e r with r e g a r d to AOA. 93 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION T h i s f i n a l chapter d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s of the present study, makes recommendations f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h and comments on the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s on assessment of English-as-a-second-1anguage (ESL) c h i l d r e n . To what extent does immigrant s t u d e n t s ' age on a r r i v a l (AOA) and length of r e s i d e n c e (LOR) in Canada a f f e c t t h e i r performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s that are given in t h e i r n a t i v e language ( L I ) or second language (L2)? The present study attempted to answer t h i s q u e s t i o n by t e s t i n g the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses: (1) Immigrant s t u d e n t s ' AOA and LOR and performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s should be c o r r e l a t e d . (2) S u b j e c t s ' performance on the two IQ measures sh o u l d have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n . (3) A high nonverbal and lower verbal a b i l i t i e s p r o f i l e would be apparent on the E n g l i s h IQ measure. 5.1 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS ONE The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s of the present study was that immigrant s t u d e n t s ' AOA and LOR i n Canada and performance on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s should be c o r r e l a t e d . Thus, the longer the immigrant c h i l d r e n have o b t a i n e d education i n Canada (or LOR), the b e t t e r t h e i r performance on the E n g l i s h measures s h o u l d be. T h e r e f o r e , LOR and s u b j e c t s ' performance on the 94 E n g l i s h measures should have s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . On the c o n t r a r y , an increase in LOR was hypothesized to lower t h e i r performance on the Chinese measure because of the lack of enrichment in Chinese language development. Thus, LOR and t h e i r performance on the Chinese measure would have a s i g n i f i c a n t negative corre1 at i on. With regard to AOA, o l d e r l e a r n e r s (who came to Canada when they were o l d e r ) were hypothesized to perform b e t t e r than younger ones on the E n g l i s h measures. Since o l d e r l e a r n e r s u s u a l l y had s t u d i e d Chinese longer than younger l e a r n e r s , there should be a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between AOA and t h e i r performance on the Chinese measure. R e s u l t s on the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n <HK-WISC) (Yung, 1981) i n d i c a t e d that the combination of AOA and LOR with gender i n c r e a s e d the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y f o r s u b j e c t s ' Verbal performance from 16 to 26%. A l s o , AOA had a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , while LOR had a negative c o r r e l a t i o n with s u b j e c t s ' performance. These f i n d i n g s supported the hyp o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t s of AOA and LOR on s u b j e c t s ' performance on the Chinese IQ measure. When the St a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE) was used as the dependent v a r i a b l e , AOA was n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e 1 a t e d with s u b j e c t s ' performance, while LOR was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . The hy p o t h e s i s with r e g a r d to 95 LOR was supported. Thus, the longer the c h i l d r e n have o b t a i n e d education in Canada, the b e t t e r t h e i r performance on the E n g l i s h measure. However, the h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g AOA was not supported. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between AOA and s u b j e c t s ' performance i n SB Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension may suggest the involvement of communicative s k i l l s , such as l i s t e n i n g comprehension, o r a l f l u e n c y and phonology. As Oyama (1978) mentioned, younger l e a r n e r s tend to have an advantage over o l d e r l e a r n e r s in communicative s k i l l s . On the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984), LOR was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with subjects'' performance. AOA was i d e n t i f i e d as having a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n with s u b j e c t s ' performance in Oral Language (Letter-Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Word Attack, & Passage Comprehension). T h i s f i n d i n g may i n d i c a t e that the Oral Language s u b t e s t s assess c h i l d r e n ' s communicative s k i l l s , where younger l e a r n e r s tend to perform b e t t e r than the o l d e r ones (Oyama, 1978). O v e r a l l , AOA and LOR d i d not have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on s u b j e c t s ' nonverbal performance. T h i s r e s u l t may be due to the f a c t that nonverbal performance i s l e s s s e n s i t i v e to the e f f e c t s of AOA and LOR. Apparently, these two v a r i a b l e s are more r e l a t e d to verbal performance. There i s a p o s s i b l e reason f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between AOA and performance on E n g l i s h measures. T h i s study probably 96 d i d not have l e a r n e r s that were o l d enough to cause s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i r performance on tasks that were u n r e l a t e d to the communicative s k i l l s . In p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , o l d e r l e a r n e r s o f t e n r e f e r r e d to c h i l d r e n who had an AOA of 14-15 years (e.g., Appel, 1979). In t h i s study, AOA and LOR had a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n , which supported Cummins' (1981) f i n d i n g that LOR decreases as AOA i n c r e a s e s . 5.2 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS TWO The second h y p o t h e s i s was only p a r t i a l l y supported. A c c o r d i n g to Cummins (1979), cognitive/academic a s p e c t s of LI and L2 are interdependent. Thus, LI and L2 are r e l a t e d to each other and w i l l show a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s with other v a r i a b l e s , such as verbal and nonverbal a b i l i t i e s . T h e r e f o r e , the present study h y p o t h e s i z e d that s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC performance (measured in t h e i r LI) sho u l d be p r e d i c t i v e of t h e i r SB: FE performance (measured in t h e i r L 2). The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC F u l l S c a l e and SB Test Composite s c o r e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n . However, t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n was low; only 17% of the t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y in s u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composite s c o r e s was a s s o c i a t e d with the v a r i a b i l i t y in s u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a le s c o r e s . In f a c t , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that 97 subjects'' HK V e r b a l S c a l e and SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g s c o r e s had no c o r r e l a t i o n . S u b j e c t s ' WLPB summary s c o r e s had no c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the HK-WISC S c a l e s c o r e s , w h i l e these WLPB s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the SB: FE summary s c o r e s . These f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t the v e r b a l s u b t e s t s of the HK-WISC and SB: FE might a l s o be a s s e s s i n g s u b j e c t s ' language p r o f i c i e n c y . As Johnson (1989) s u g g e s t e d , i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e between languages i s e x h i b i t e d i n t a s k s t h a t a r e c o g n i t i v e l y demanding, such as t a s k s t h a t measure nonverbal mental c a p a c i t y and v e r b a l - c o n c e p t u a l r e p e r t o i r e . On the o t h e r hand, v a r i a b l e s t h a t measure s p e c i f i c p r o f i c i e n c y i n a language do not e x h i b i t cross-1anguage c o r r e l a t i o n s . The f i n d i n g s t h a t the WLPB summary s c o r e s had no c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the HK-WISC S c a l e s c o r e s w h i l e h a v i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the SB: FE summary s c o r e s might i n d i c a t e t h a t the v e r b a l s u b t e s t s of the HK-WISC and SB: FE were a s s e s s i n g a r e a s more than the s u b j e c t s ' v e r b a l a b i l i t i e s . In sum, the h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the Interdependence of CALP a c r o s s languages i n v e r b a l a r e a s was not s u p p o r t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . Cummins (1979) and E k s t r a n d (1978) have mentioned t h a t CALP a c r o s s languages does not e x i s t i n an a f f e c t i v e o r e x p e r i e n t i a l vacuum. I f m o t i v a t i o n t o l e a r n an L2 ( o r m a i n t a i n an L I ) i s low, CALP w i l l not be a p p l i e d t o the ta s k of l e a r n i n g L2 ( o r m a i n t a i n i n g L I ) . A l s o , the 98 interdependence hypothesis presupposes adequate exposure to both languages. The second hypothesis of this study being partially supported may be due to the fact that the subjects had different exposure to LI and L2 education. Thus, these children probably did not have equal exposure to both languages for the development of CALP as suggested by Cummins C1979). With regard to subjects' HK Performance and SB Abstract/Visual Reasoning scores, a significant positive correlation was found. Thus, this finding supported Cummins' C1979) claim that LI and L2 will show similar pattern of correlations with IQ variables <in nonverbal a b i l i t i e s in this study). 5.3 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS THREE The third hypothesis was that a high nonverbal and lower verbal a b i l i t i e s profile would be apparent on the English IQ measure. According to Vernon (1980), the same pattern of high nonverbal and lower verbal a b i l i t i e s has persisted in both Chinese and Japanese children. Therefore, this study hypothesized that the subjects would have this profile of performance on the SB: FE (standardized in the United States). On the HK-WISC, this profile of performance was not hypothesized to present because the HK-WISC was standardized in Hong Kong, where the subjects migrated from. With this characteristic intellectual profile, it was 99 hyp o t h e s i z e d that there would be a s m a l l e r d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r performance on nonverbal than verbal measures. Thus, the d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r Verbal Performance (HK Verbal S c a l e s c o r e s vs. SB Verbal Reasoning SAS; HK Ver b a l S c a l e s c o r e s vs. Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s ) would be g r e a t e r than the d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r Nonverbal performance (HK Performance Scale s c o r e s vs. SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS; HK Performance S c a l e s c o r e s vs. Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s ) . The f i n d i n g s supported t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . The mean d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e (Average) and SB Verbal Reasoning SAS (Low Average) and SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s (Slow Learner) were 28.84 and 36.16 r e s p e c t i v e l y . On the other hand, the mean d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e (High Average) and SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS (High Average) and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s (Average) were 1.28 and 8.97 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Thus, i t i s apparent that t h e i r Nonverbal performance d i f f e r e n c e s were much s m a l l e r than t h e i r Verbal performance d i f f e r e n c e s . The f i n d i n g s of the Verbal Comprehension and Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s being lower than the Verbal and A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS may be due to the f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t , in Verbal Comprehension, s u b j e c t s ' Memory f o r Sentences sub t e s t s c o r e s were i n c l u d e d in the computation. Since the s u b j e c t s had the worst performance 100 (about 2 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s below the mean) on t h i s s u b t e s t , the i n c l u s i o n of these s c o r e s d e f l a t e d t h e i r Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s . Second, ln Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n , s u b j e c t s ' Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t s c o r e s were i n c l u d e d . Since the Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t i n v o l v e d s u b j e c t s ' verbal s k i l l s , t h e i r Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s became lower than t h e i r A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS, in which no verbal s k i l l s were r e q u i r e d . It s h o u l d be noted that t h e i r Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n with the Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r s c o r e s ( r = . 70 , p_<. 01). 5.4 DISCUSSION OF OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS 5.4.1 Test Observations It was a v a l u a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y to observe s u b j e c t s ' d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r s in the two t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s (one when the HK-WISC was given, and the other when the SB: FE was g i v e n ) . O v e r a l l , s u b j e c t s were more p e r s i s t e n t , r e l a x e d , and t a l k a t i v e when the Chinese measure was g i v e n . When they were assessed with the E n g l i s h measures (SB: FE & WLPB), they u s u a l l y gave up e a s i l y and were u n w i l l i n g to take chances in guessing the answers. However, i t s h o u l d be noted that the b e h a v i o r s of the c h i l d who had b e t t e r performance on the SB: FE than HK-WISC had j u s t the o p p o s i t e b e h a v i o r s . 101 5.4.2 Other S i g n i f i c a n t P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s B esides AOA and LOR, the f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d to have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on s u b j e c t s ' performance. These p r e d i c t o r s i n c l u d e gender, mother's ed u c a t i o n , f a t h e r ' s occupation (HK), f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada), mother's occupation (Canada), whether the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e , and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home. Gender had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on s u b j e c t s ' HK S i m i l a r i t i e s and SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t s c o r e s . In both cases, male s u b j e c t s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than famale s u b j e c t s . These f i n d i n g s support p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s (e.g., Maccoby & J a c k l i n , 1974) In s u g g e s t i n g that males are educated to produce b e t t e r a n a l y t i c and math performance. Family's socioeconomic s t a t u s (SES), i n c l u d i n g mother's edu c a t i o n , f a t h e r ' s occupation (Canada & HK), and mother's occupation (Canada), had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with s u b j e c t s ' performance on the E n g l i s h IQ measure. These r e s u l t s support the c l a i m that SES and IQ s c o r e s are r e l a t e d (Thorndike, Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1986b). S u b j e c t s who had s t u d i e d E n g l i s h before they came to Canada had b e t t e r performance than those who had not in SB Verbal Reasoning, SB Verbal Comprehension, and WLPB Oral Language. These f i n d i n g s suggest that c h i l d r e n who s t a r t e d l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h when they were In Hong Kong might have a 102 'head s t a r t ' . Thus, they might have a background In E n g l i s h that f a c i l i t a t e s t h e i r f u r t h e r l e a r n i n g in E n g l i s h . C h i l d r e n who ' o f t e n ' speak Cantonese at home d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than those who 'always' speak Cantonese at home. I n i t i a l l y , t h i s f i n d i n g seemed to c o n t r a d i c t r e s e a r c h e r s ' (e.g., Cummins, 1984) advice that speaking LI at home may a v o i d poor models of E n g l i s h . However, i t shou l d be noted that in t h i s study, c h i l d r e n r a t h e r than p a r e n t s ' frequency of speaking Cantonese at home was measured. Thus, i t was d i f f e r e n t from the issue of having a poor language model. Whether c h i l d r e n speak LI or L2 at home may p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e i r language a b i l i t i e s . For example, a c h i l d who does not speak h i s / h e r L2 may be having d i f f i c u l t i e s . A l s o , e x c l u s i v e use of LI in the home may r e f l e c t a f a m i l y ' s general lack of adjustment to the new s o c i e t y , r a t h e r than a cause of l e a r n i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . In a d d i t i o n to these f i n d i n g s , the combination of LOR, mother's educa t i o n , and frequency of speaking Cantonese at home had the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s with the s u b j e c t s ' Verbal Reasoning SAS and Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r s c o r e s <r = .57, p_<.05 i n both c a s e s ) . Thus, among the s i g n i f i c a n t SES v a r i a b l e s , mother's education was the most important v a r i a b l e . As Wilson (1983) suggested, when mothers are i n t e l l e c t u a l l y t r a i n e d and have high s o c i a l s t a t u s , t h e i r c h i l d r e n tend to score h i g h e r on IQ t e s t s . 103 O v e r a l l , the e f f e c t s of these v a r i a b l e s appeared to be s m a l l e r on s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC than SB: FE performance. T h i s may be due to the e f f e c t s of other v a r i a b l e s , such as f a m i l i a r i t y of the Chinese language and novel t y of the Chinese IQ measure to these c h i l d r e n . 5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY The present study was l i m i t e d i n terms of sample s i z e , types of s u b j e c t s , and types of c o g n i t i v e and language measures b e i n g used. F i r s t , t h i s study had i n c l u d e d 19 p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . With a sample s i z e of 32, a s i n g l e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was impossible to compute. As a r e s u l t , d i f f e r e n t stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were computed, with v a r i a b l e s combined in groups of two or t h r e e ' s f o r a n a l y s e s . By computing d i f f e r e n t m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s , some important i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s among v a r i a b l e s might remain undetected. Secondly, the present sample i n v o l v e d c h i l d r e n who had an LOR from .67 year to 3.17 ye a r s . P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s (e.g., Cummins, 1984; C o l l i e r s , 1987) on the d i f f e r e n c e s between c h i l d r e n ' s b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s (BICS) and c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) o f t e n i n v o l v e d c h i l d r e n who had a l a r g e r range of LOR (e.g., 2 to 7 years) f o r comparisons. The s m a l l e r range of LOR in t h i s study may have r e s u l t e d i n the f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e Cummins 104 (1984) and C o l l i e r s ' ' (1987) f i n d i n g s . Thus, t h i s study was unable to determine i f in f a c t immigrant c h i l d r e n w i l l take at l e a s t 5 yea r s , on the average, to approach grade norms in L2 c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c language p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP). F i n a l l y , t h i s study had to use the HK-WISC as the measure of s u b j e c t s ' Chinese language p r o f i c i e n c y because i t was the only Chinese s t a n d a r d i z e d measure a v a i l a b l e . As a r e s u l t , an E n g l i s h IQ measure was used f o r comparisons. If a Chinese achievement or language measure was a v a i l a b l e to compare with an E n g l i s h measure, d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s might have been o b t a i n e d . Moreover, s i n c e t h i s study only c o u l d a f f o r d a 1-month t e s t - r e t e s t i n t e r v a l , the SB: FE was chosen over the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974). The HK-WISC was l i k e l y to have g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s with the SB: FE than WISC-R. Thus, o b t a i n i n g a high c o r r e l a t i o n between the HK-WISC and SB: FE was l e s s l i k e l y . The f a c t that the WLPB does not have d e r i v e d s c o r e s f o r s u b t e s t s l i m i t e d the comparisons between c h i l d r e n ' s performance on these, HK-WISC and SB: FE s u b t e s t s . For example, the c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s performance on the P i c t u r e Vocabulary sub t e s t of the WLPB and SB Vocabulary sub t e s t remained unknown. In a d d i t i o n , the WLPB W r i t t e n Language standa r d s c o r e s were d e r i v e d from s u b j e c t s ' performance in D i c t a t i o n and P r o o f i n g ( i . e . , the mechanics of w r i t i n g ) . If a measure of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n was used, s u b j e c t s ' w r i t t e n language s c o r e s might have been 105 lower ( b e i n g more c o n s i s t e n t with the other WLPB language s c o r e s ) . 5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Suggestions f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h Include the f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t , a l a r g e r s c a l e study i s needed to r e p l i c a t e the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study. The sample s i z e s h o u l d be la r g e enough so that a s i n g l e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s can be computed to determine the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of a l l the p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . Second, the present study only i n v o l v e d Chinese c h i l d r e n from Hong Kong. Thus, the f i n d i n g s may not be a p p l i c a b l e to other e t h n i c c h i l d r e n . Other r e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d r e p l i c a t e t h i s study by i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n from other e t h n i c backgrounds. T h i r d , i f the present study i s to be r e p l i c a t e d , more time should be allowed f o r the t e s t - r e t e s t i n t e r v a l so that the WISC-R can be used to r e p l a c e the SB: FE. As Lee and Lam (1988) suggested, the HK-WISC and WISC-R have I n v a r i a n t f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c p r o p e r t i e s ; t h e r e f o r e , r e s u l t s from these two t e s t s s h o u l d p r o v i d e h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ( i . e . , b e t t e r p r e d i c t a b i 1 i t i e s ) . F ourth, the present study b a s i c a l l y drew c o n c l u s i o n s from the f i n d i n g s of IQ measures. It w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l to f i n d out whether the f i n d i n g s w i l l h o l d f o r a study that 106 i n v o l v e s achievement or language measures in c h i l d r e n ' s LI and L2. F i n a l l y , s o c i a l f a c t o r s such as p a r e n t s ' p r e s s u r e f o r achievement, p a r e n t s ' encouragement and support, and the c h i l d ' s m o t i v a t i o n to l e a r n a language may be u s e f u l in p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r performance. T h e r e f o r e , these f a c t o r s s h o u l d be Included in f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . However, these f a c t o r s are more d i f f i c u l t to measure than f a c t o r s l i k e SES. 5.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND- LANGUAGE (ESL) CHILDREN The present r e s u l t s have two major i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the assessment of ESL c h i l d r e n . F i r s t , a s s e s s i n g ESL c h i l d r e n with both t h e i r LI and L2 i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t in a b e t t e r estimate of t h e i r c o g n i tive/academic p o t e n t i a l than L2 alone. As Maidonado-Colon (1986) mentioned, in order to determine whether an immigrant c h i l d does indeed have an e d u c a t i o n a l handicap, i t i s e s s e n t i a l to make the d i s t i n c t i o n between d e f i c i e n c i e s caused by f u n c t i o n i n g in an L2 and true d i s o r d e r s which would be evident in the L I . Second, the f i n d i n g s that S a t t l e r ' s (1988) Verbal Comprehension and Nonverbal Reasoning F a c t o r s c o r e s p r o v i d e d lower verbal and nonverbal s c o r e s d i s c r e d i t the use of these two f a c t o r s c o r e s with ESL c h i l d r e n . Based on the present f i n d i n g s , Verbal Reasoning and A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning s t a n d a r d age s c o r e s (SAS) s h o u l d p r o v i d e a b e t t e r estimate of s u b j e c t s ' verbal and nonverbal a b i l i t i e s on the SB: FE. 107 5.8 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION In c o n c l u s i o n , AOA and LOR are important p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r ESL immigrant's verbal performance. In a d d i t i o n , v a r i a b l e s such as f a m i l y socioeconomic s t a t u s , frequency of speaking Cantonese at home, gender, and having s t u d i e d E n g l i s h before are a l s o u s e f u l to make p r e d i c t i o n s on these c h i l d r e n ' s performance. Moreover, the h y p o t h e s i s on the interdependence of CALP a c r o s s languages b e i n g p a r t i a l l y supported may be due to the c h i l d r e n ' s inadequate exposure to both languages. The present sample had a high nonverbal and low verbal p r o f i l e of performance on the SB: FE. T h i s f i n d i n g adds t o the cumulative data that O r i e n t a l s have a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o f i l e . F i n a l l y , If f e a s i b l e , immigrant c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be assessed l n both LI and L2. S t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s can be used to a s s ess ESL immigrant c h i l d r e n , even in t h e i r f i r s t few years of a r r i v a l to a new country. The assessment r e s u l t s s h o u l d be kept on f i l e r a t h e r than b e i n g used f o r placement purposes. Comparisons between these and reassessment r e s u l t s can be made i f an immigrant c h i l d c o n t i n u e s to experience academic d i f f i c u l t i e s . However, a l l the assessment r e s u l t s need to be i n t e r p r e t e d with extreme c a u t i o n because i n a p p r o p r i a t e l a b e l l i n g and misplacement of these c h i l d r e n are unacceptable. 108 REFERENCES Anderson, P. L., 8. M o r r i s , P. D. (1989). Use of the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y with c u l t u r a l l y v a r i a n t l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s . Psvcholoav i n the S c h o o l s . £6, 130-138. A n a s t a s i , A. (1988). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g <6th ed.). New York: Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g Company. Appel, R. (1979). The a c q u i s i t i o n of Dutch bv T u r k i s h and Moroccan c h i l d r e n in two d i f f e r e n t school models. Unpublished r e s e a r c h r e p o r t , I n s t i t u t e f o r Developmental Psychology, U t r e c h t . Barona, A., 8< Barona, M. (1987). A model f o r the assessment of l i m i t e d E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n t s tudents r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s . In S. H. Fradd & W. J . T i k u n o f f ( E d s . ) , B i l i n g u a l education and b i l i n g u a l s p e c i a l education (pp. 183-209). Boston: C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Education (1986). Comparison of 1986/87 and 1985/86 enr o l l m e n t . funding, and cost per student bv d i s t r i c t and program - 3.30 E n g l i s h - second language. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Education. Brosnan, F. L. (1983). O v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of low socioecenomic m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s i n s p e c i a l education programs in C a l i f o r n i a . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s Q u a r t e r l y . 6, 517-525. Canal e, M., 8. Swain, M. (1979). T h e o r e t i c a l bases of communicative approaches to second language t e a c h i n g and t e s t i n g . Toronto: O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . C a r r o l l , J . B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Ap t i t u d e T e s t . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . C a r v a j a l , H., 8. Weyand, K. (1986). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c o r e s on the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IV and Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 59. 963-966. C a t t e l l , R. B. (1971). A b i l i t i e s : T h e i r s t r u c t u r e s , growth, and a c t i o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Chamot, A. U., 8. O'Malley, J . M. (1987). The c o g n i t i v e academic language l e a r n i n g approach: A b r i d g e to the mainstream. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21. 227-249. 109 Chan, D. W. (1984). F a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the HK-WISC at 11 age l e v e l s between 5 and 15 ye a r s . Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 52. 482-483. C o l l i e r , V. P. (1987). Age and r a t e of a c q u i s i t i o n of second language f o r academic purposes. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21. 617-641. C o l l i e r , V. P. (1989). How Long? A s y n t h e s i s of r e s e a r c h on academic achievement i n a second language. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 23. 509-531. Cummins, J . (1976). The i n f l u e n c e of b i l i n g u a l i s m on c o g n i t i v e growth: A s y n t h e s i s of re s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 9, 1-43. Cummins, J . (1979). Cognitive/academic language p r o f i c i e n c y , l i n g u i s t i c interdependence, the optimal age q u e s t i o n , and some other matters. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 9, 1-43. Cummins, J . (1980). The entry and e x i t f a l l a c y in b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n . NABE J o u r n a l . 4, 25-59. Cummins, J . (1981). Age on a r r i v a l and immigrant second language l e a r n i n g i n Canada: A reassessment. A P P I l e d L i n g u i s t i c s . 11. 132-149. Cummins, J . (1984). B i l i n g u a l i s m and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n : Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: M u l t i l i n g u a l M a t t e r s . Cummins, J . , & Swain, M. (1986). B i 1 i n g u a l i s m in ed u c a t i o n . New York: Longman. de V i l l i e r s , J . G., & de V i l l i e r s , P. A. (1978). Language a c g u i s l t i o n . Cambridge, MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1980). The r e l a t i v e p r o f i c i e n c y of l i m i t e d E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n t s t u d e n t s . In J . E. A l a t i s ( E d . ) , Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y round t a b l e on languages and l i n g u i s t i c s 1980: Current Issues in b i l i n g u a l e ducation (pp. 181-200). Washington, DC: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Ekstrand, L. H. (1977). S o c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l frame f a c t o r s in L2 l e a r n i n g : Comparative a s p e c t s . In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.), Papers from the f i r s t N ordic conference on b i l i n g u a l i s m . H e l s i n g f o r s : U n i v e r s i t e t e t . 110 E k s t r a n d , L. H. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . B i l i n g u a l and b l c u l t u r a l a d a p t a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of St o c k h o l m , Sweden. E s q u i v e l , G. B, (1 9 8 5 ) . Best p r a c t i c e s i n the assessment of l i m i t e d E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n t and b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . In A. Thomas & J . Grimes ( E d s . ) , Best p r a c t i c e s i n s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g y (pp. 207-213). Kent, Ohio: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School P s y c h o l o g i s t s . F r y , M. A. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of o r a l language s t r u c t u r e used bv two r e a d i n g groups a t the second grade l e v e l . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (1 9 7 9 ) . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n young second language l e a r n e r s . U n p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h r e p o r t , McGi11 U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t r e a l . H a r t s h o r n e , T . S., 8, Hoyt, E. B. (1 9 8 5 ) . Best p r a c t i c e s i n c o n d u c t i n g r e - e v a l u a t i o n s . In A. Thomas 8< J . Grimes ( E d s . ) , Best p r a c t i c e s i n s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g y (pp. 207-213). Kent, Ohio: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School P s y c h o l o g i s t s . Heath, S. B. (1 9 8 6 ) . S o c i o c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s of language development. In S. B. Heath ( E d . ) , Beyond language: S o c i a l and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s i n s c h o o l i n g language m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s (pp. 143-186). Los A n g e l e s : C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n , D i s s e m i n a t i o n and Assessment C e n t e r . Hernandez-Chavez, E. , B u r t , M., 8i Dulay, H. (1978). Language dominance and p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g : Some g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . NABE J o u r n a l . 3_, 41-54. Johnson, J . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . F a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o cross-1anguage t r a n s f e r and metaphor i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . A p p l i e d P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i e s . 10. 157-177. Krashen, S. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The m o n i t o r model f o r second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In R. C. G l n g r a s ( E d . ) , Second language a c q u i s i t i o n and f o r e i g n language t e a c h i n g (pp. 1-26). A r l i n g t o n , Texas: CAL P r e s s . Lambert, W. E. (1 9 8 4 ) . An o v e r v i e w of i s s u e s i n immersion e d u c a t i o n . In C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Department of E d u c a t i o n ( E d . ) , S t u d i e s on immersion e d u c a t i o n : A c o l l e c t i o n f o r U n i t e d S t a t e s e d u c a t o r s (pp. 8-30). Sacramento: C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Department of E d u c a t i o n . I l l Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1977). The use of E n g l i s h and French c l o z e t e s t s in a b i l i n g u a l education program e v a l u a t i o n : V a l i d i t y and e r r o r a n a l y s i s . Language Le a r n i n g . 27. 279-313. Lau, W. C. Y. , 8, Lee, P. L. M. (1986). T e c h n i c a l r e p o r t on the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n . Hong Kong: Education Department. Lee, P. L. M., & Lam, R. Y. (1988). Confirmatory f a c t o r a n a l y s e s of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d and the Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 48. 895-903. L i v e s a y , K. (1986). Comparisons of the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t : Fourth E d i t i o n to the S-B: L-M and WISC-R with g i f t e d r e f e r r a l s . Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the F l o r i d a A s s o c i a t i o n of School P s y c h o l o g i s t s , Jacksonv i11e. Lynn, R. (1987). The i n t e l l i g e n c e of the Mongoloids: A psychometric, e v o l u t i o n a r y , and n e u r o l o g i c a l theory. P e r s o n a l i t y and I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . 8, 813. Lynn, R., P a g l i a r i , C , 8> Chan, J . (1988). I n t e l l i g e n c e in Hong Kong measured f o r Spearman's g and the v i s u o s p a t i a l and verbal p r i m a r i e s . I n t e l 1igence. 12. 423-433. Maccoby E. E. , 8. J a c k l i n , C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex d i f f e r e n c e s . S t a n f o r d , CA: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Maclntyre, R. B. (1985). Techniques f o r i d e n t i f y i n g l e a r n i n g - i m p a i r e d m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s . In R. J . Samuda 8. A. Wolfgang ( E d s . ) , I n t e r c u 1 t u r a l c o u n s e l l i n g and assessment: Global p e r s p e c t i v e s (pp. 155-164). Toronto: C. J . Hogrefe. Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Assessment: C o n s i d e r a t i o n s upon i n t e r p r e t i n g data of l i n g u i s t i c a l l y / c u l t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t s t udents r e f e r r e d f o r d i s a b i l i t i e s or d i s o r d e r s . In A. C. W i l l i g & H. F. Greenberg ( E d s . ) , B i 1 i n g u a l i s m and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l t i e s : P o l i c y and p r a c t i c e f o r t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (pp. 69-77). New York: American L i b r a r y . McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language a c q u i s i t i o n i n c h i l d h o o d : V o l . 1 . Preschool c h i l d r e n (2nd ed.). 112 H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School P s y c h o l o g i s t s (1984). P r o f e s s i o n a l conduct manual. S t r a t f o r d , CT: NASP P u b l i c a t i o n s O f f i c e . Noyce, R. (1985). Review of Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y . In J . V. M i t c h e l l , J r . ( E d . ) , The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook V o l . II (pp. 1765-1766). L i n c o l n , NE: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . Olmedo, E. (1981). T e s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c m i n o r i t i e s . American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 36. 1078-1085. O i l e r , J . W., J r . (1978). The language f a c t o r in the e v a l u a t i o n of b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n . In J . E. A l a t l s ( E d . ) , Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y round t a b l e on languages and 1 i n g u i s t i e s 1978 (pp. 410-422). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . O i l e r , J . W., J r . (1979). Language t e s t s at s c h o o l : A pragmatic approach. New York: Longman. Ovando, C. J . , & C o l l i e r , V. P. (1985). B l 1 i n g u a l and ESL classrooms: Teaching in m u l t i c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . New York: McGraw-Hi11. Oyama, S. (1978). The s e n s i t i v e p e r i o d and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 16. 1-17. Quinn, M. (1985). Review of Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y . In J . V. M i t c h e l l , J r . ( E d . ) , The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook V o l . II (pp. 1767). L i n c o l n , NE: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . Ramsey, C. A., 8. Wright, E. N. (1974). Age and second language l e a r n i n g . Journal of S o c i a l Psychology. 94. 115-121. Raven, J . C., Court, J . H., 8. Raven, J . (1983). Manual f o r Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s and Vocabulary S c a l e s ( S e c t i o n 3)-Standard P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s . London: Lewis. R o t h l i s b e r g , B. A. (1987). Comparing the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t : Fourth E d i t i o n to the WISC-R: A concurrent v a l i d i t y study. Journal of School Psvcho1ogy. 25. 193-196. Samuda, R. J . , 8< Crawford, D. H. (1980). T e s t i n g , assessment, c o u n s e l l i n g , and placement of e t h n i c 113 m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s . Toronto: O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s in Education. S a t t l e r , J . M. (1988). Assessment of c h i l d r e n ( 3 r d ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. S a t t l e r . S c i e nce Research A s s o c i a t e s (1978). Science Research A s s o c i a t e s achievement s e r i e s . Chicago: Author. Shephard, L., & Smith, M. L. (1981). E v a l u a t i o n of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of perceptual-communicat 1ve d i s o r d e r s in Colorado. Boulder, CO: U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). B i l i n g u a l i s m or not: The education of m i n o r i t i e s . Clevedon, England: M u l t i l i n g u a l M atters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Toukomaa, P. (1976). Teaching migrant c h i l d r e n ' s mother tongue and l e a r n i n g the language of the host country in the context of the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n of the migrant f a m i l y . H e l s i n k i : F i n n i s h N a t i o n a l Commission f o r UNESCO. Snow, C , & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The c r i t i c a l p e r i o d f o r language a c q u i s i t i o n : Evidence from second language l e a r n i n g . Chi Id Development. 49. 1114-1128. Thorndike, R. L. , Hagen, E. P., 8. S a t t l e r , J . M. (1986a). Guide f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g and s c o r i n g , the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n . Chicago: R i v e r s i d e P u b l i sh i ng. Thorndike, R. L. , Hagen, E. P., 8. S a t t l e r , J . M. (1986b). T e c h n i c a l Manual. S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e : Fourth E d i t i o n . Chicago: R i v e r s i d e P u b l i s h i n g . Tucker, J . A. (1980). E t h n i c p r o p o r t i o n s in c l a s s e s f o r the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d : Issues ln nonbiased assessment. Journal of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 14. 93-105. V a l e n c i a , R. R. (1983). S t a b i l i t y of the McCarthy S c a l e s of C h i l d r e n ' s A b i l i t i e s over a one-year p e r i o d f o r Mexican-American c h i l d r e n . Psychology in the Schools. 20, 29-34. Vernon, P. (1980). Chinese immigrants and c i t i z e n s i n Canada. New Horizons. 21. 12-25. Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual f o r the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n . San Antonio: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . 114 Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual f o r the Wechsler Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e . San Antonio: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporat i o n . Wechsler, D. (1967). Manual f o r the Wechsler Preschool and Primary S c a l e of I n t e l l i g e n c e . San Antonio: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporat i on. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual f o r the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d . San Antonio: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual f o r the Wechsler A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e - R e v i s e d . San Antonio: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporat i o n . W e l l s , C. S. (1979). D e s c r i b i n g c h i 1 d r e n ' s l i n g u i s t i c development at home and at s c h o o l . B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l Research Journal . 5_, 75-89. W i l l i g , A. C. (1986). S p e c i a l education and the c u l t u r a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d : An overview of i s s u e s and c h a l l e n g e s . In A. C. W i l l i g & H. F. Greenberg ( E d s . ) , B i l i n g u a l i s m and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : P o l i c y and p r a c t i c e f o r t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (pp. 191-209). New York: American L i b r a r y . Wilson, R. S. (1983). The L o u i s v i l l e twin study: Developmental s y n c h r o n i e s in b e h a v i o r . Ch11d Development. 54, 298-316. Woodcock, R. W. (1984). Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y . A l l e n , TX: DLM Teaching Resources. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psvcho-Educational B a t t e r y . Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources C o r p o r a t i o n . Wright, P., & Santa Cruz, R. (1983). E t h n i c composition of s p e c i a l education programs in C a l i f o r n i a . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s Q u a r t e r l y . 6, 387-394. Yung, G. (1981). The Hong Kong-Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC) Manual. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government P r i n t i n g Department. 115 APPENDIX A L e t t e r of Permission The e n c l o s e d l e t t e r was given to the p a r e n t s i n order to o b t a i n consent f o r t h e i r c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s study. 117 The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia F a c u l t y of Education 2125 Main Mai 1 Vancouver, B.C. V6T 125 i J. 'A 1$ i \ i J * & b - & h % % ns A % 119 Parent Permission Form I do or do not ( c i r c l e one) grant p e r m i s s i o n f o r my c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s p r o j e c t , and I acknowledge r e c e i p t of a copy of t h i s l e t t e r and a l l attachments. I understand that my c h i l d w i l l be t e s t e d by a q u a l i f i e d examiner in the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l . I a l s o understand that my c h i l d ' s i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . I am t h i s c h i l d ' s parent or l e g a l guardian, and I am completing t h i s form on the c h i l d ' s b e h a l f . Name (pl e a s e p r i n t ) : S i g n a t u r e : R e l a t i o n s h i p to c h i l d : Address: Telephone: 120 A" ^ & * *t $ ? ̂  *74- *- ft * t tt• tXtHy& i" ̂  A &Mt'\ ?rt i t . 1\ M A *V ^ - J - -^ -^ ^ # M - % i " W ̂  ¥K . 4^ 1 2 1 APPSNPIX B Background Information The f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d by the immigrant s t u d e n t s ' p a r e n t s , who had p e r m i t t e d t h e i r c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study. 122 Background Information If you consent f o r your c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e , p l e a s e complete the f o l l o w i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l background Information. Name of C h i l d : Date of B i r t h : Present Age: Year of A r r i v a l In Canada: Age of A r r i v a l in Canada: F a t h e r ' s Occupation: In H.K.: In Canada: Mother's Occupation: In H.K.: In Canada: Father/Male Guardian and Mother/Female Guardian's Highest Educat i o n a l Attainment (check one f o r each column): Years of Education Completed Father/Male Mother/Female Guardian Guardian Up to Grade/Primary 6 Grade 7-9/Form 1-3 Grade 10-11/Form 4-5 Grade 12/13 or Form 6-7 1-3 Years of C o l l e g e or T e c h n i c a l School Four Years of U n i v e r s i t y or More Has your c h i l d ever been r e f e r r e d f o r e d u c a t i o n a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e g i v e reason(s) f o r r e f e r r a l : Is your c h i l d r e c e i v i n g s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e in l e a r n i n g at school (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e e x p l a i n : Had your c h i l d r e c e i v e d any education in E n g l i s h before coming to Canada (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e the d u r a t i o n : years months 123 Page 2 Background Information Had your c h i l d r e c e i v e d any education in Chinese before coming to Canada (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e the d u r a t i o n : years months Is your c h i l d r e c e i v i n g any education in Chinese (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e the frequency (e.g., 2 hours per week): What i s the frequency of your c h i l d speaking Cantonese at home (check one)? Never Seldom Often Always 1 2 4 4- # : : % : : it- 4 v#jj- . . . 2 X.1 A } % ; m. % -ft « i i , i'h H ')\ >X$\ K *i flfl (*•] n % & M )M ti*f) •. (4- ) ; lUff - 125 - 126 APPENDIX C Intercorrelations of the HK-WISC Subtest Scores HK-WISC HK-WISC INFO SIM , ftRITH VOCAB COMP DS PC PA BD OA COD MAZ Verb a l : INFO 1.00 .41** .42** .62** .68** -.02 .40* .25 .02 -.02 -.02 -.01 SIM .42** 1.00 .22 .46** .50** -.14 .43** .46**.15 .10 -.16 .08 ARITH .42** .22 1.00 .27 .08 .00 .18 .15 .36* -.15 -.07 -.03 VOCAB .62** .46** .27 1.00 .46** -.11 .28 .25 .00 -.17 -.03 -.24 COMP .68** .50** .08 .46** 1.00 -.11 .45**.19 - .16 .12 .07 -.14 DS .02 --.14 .00 -••11 - .11 1.00 -.11- .27 .25 .10 -.28 .22 Performance: PC .40* .43** .18 .28 .45** -.11 1.00 .16 .11 .25 .03 .03 PA .25 .45** .15 .25 .19 -.27 .16 1.00 .21 .11 .08 .27 BD .02 .15 .36* .00 - .16 .25 .11 .21 1.00 .24 -.04 .22 OA .02 .10 • -.15 - .17 .12 .10 .25 .11 .24 1.00 -.02 .00 COD .02 --.16 - .07 - .03 .07 -.28 .03 .08 - .04 -.02 1.00 -.08 MAZ .01 .08 -.03 - .24 - .14 .22 .03 .27 .22 .00- .08 1.00 Note. INFO - Information SIM - S i m i l a r i t i e s ARITH - A r i t h m e t i c VOCAB - Vocabulary COMP - Comprehension DS - D i g i t Span PC - P i c t u r e Completion PA - P i c t u r e Arrangement BD - Block Design OA - Object Assembly COD - Coding MAZ - Mazes * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l l e v e l APPENDIX P I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the SB: FE Subtest Scores SB: FE SB: FE VOCAB COMP PANALYSIS MATRICES QUANT BMEMORY SMEMORY VOCAB 1.00 .49** .36* -.04 .10 .16 .62** COMP .49** 1.00 .22 .18 .23 .24 .49** PANALYSIS .36* .22 1.00 .23 .25 .29 .52** MATRICES --.04 .18 .23 1.00 .29 .22 .27 QUANT .10 .23 .25 .29 1.00 .10 .32* BMEMORY .16 .24 .29 .22 .10 1.00 .43** SMEMORY .62** .49** .52** .27 .32* .43** 1.00 Note. VOCAB - Vocabu1 lary COMP - Comprehension PANALYSIS - Pattern Analysis MATRICES - Matrices QUANT - Quantitative BMEMORY - Bead Memory SMEMORY - Memory for Sentences * - Significant at the .05 level ** - Significant at the .01 level 128 APPENDIX E I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the 19 p r e d i c t o r s were computed f o r t h i s study. AOA • LOR AOA 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 4 1 6 4 * LOR - . 4 1 6 4 * 1 . 0 0 0 0 AOC . 8 6 3 3 " . 0 9 9 4 GENDER - . 1836 - . 0 0 8 3 SCHOOL . 0 6 4 5 . 1779 GRADE . 8 1 3 6 * * . 1 1 9 1 F E - . 0 6 3 7 . 0 6 9 8 ME . 0 7 7 3 . 1569 FHKO - . 2 0 2 2 . 0 1 4 5 MHKO . 2 3 3 2 - . 1615 FCO - . 3 6 3 2 . 1347 MCO . 0 4 2 4 - . 3 7 1 8 S E B - . 1 6 6 5 . 2 8 7 8 MSEB . 1 5 8 2 . 1220 S C B MSCB . 4 7 5 4 * - . 2 2 5 9 RC - . 2 5 3 8 - . 1 0 5 5 F R E Q S C - . 2 3 1 4 - . 1 3 9 5 F S C H . 1 3 6 8 . 0 0 8 8 AOC GENDER SCHOOL . 8 6 3 3 * ' - . 1836 . 0 6 4 5 . 0 9 9 4 - . 0 0 8 3 . 1779 . 0 0 0 0 - . 2 0 5 6 . 1693 . 2056 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 0 8 8 2 . 1693 - . 0 8 8 2 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 9 5 6 5 * * - . 1 7 8 3 . 1064 . 0 3 0 9 - . 1368 . 0 6 5 7 . 1 7 1 7 . 0 0 9 9 . 0 1 0 8 . 2 1 3 2 . 1669 . 1968 . 1655 - . 0 8 9 2 . 0 6 4 1 . 3227 . 1674 . 2 0 6 1 . 1600 - . 0 9 9 6 . 0 9 7 5 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 6 4 7 . 3497 . 2 4 0 9 . 1 1 9 3 . 2 4 4 3 . 3949 - . 1303 - .01 14 . 3 3 6 3 - . 2 0 4 1 . 1807 . 3307 - . 1636 . 2 7 0 4 . 1546 - . 2 4 6 8 . 2 7 5 9 GRADE F E ME . 8 1 3 6 " - . 0 6 3 7 . 0 7 7 3 . 1 1 9 1 . 0 6 9 8 . 1 5 6 9 . 9 5 6 5 " - . 0 3 0 9 . 1 7 1 7 - . 1 7 8 3 - . 1 3 6 8 . 0 0 9 9 . 1 0 6 4 . 0 6 5 7 . 0 1 0 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 1 6 9 9 . 0 0 6 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 6 2 1 2 " . 1 6 9 9 . 6 2 1 2 " 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 2 4 6 5 - . 1 0 0 7 - . 1 7 2 9 . 2 2 4 9 - . 3 0 5 9 - . 4 5 4 1 * - . 3 1 3 1 . 0 2 2 5 - . 0 5 5 6 - . 0 7 6 0 - . 1 3 9 4 - . 5 5 2 3 " - . 0 6 8 3 . 4 1 8 7 * . 6 0 9 3 " . 2 0 7 7 . 2 3 4 7 . 4 5 3 8 * . 3 4 9 5 - . 0 2 4 7 . 0 3 9 7 - . 3 0 6 6 . 2 3 0 0 - . 2 3 6 3 - . 2 8 8 3 . 1 8 7 6 . 0 0 0 5 . 1 4 9 6 - . 0 8 7 6 - . 0 4 2 8 FHKO MHKO FCO 2 0 2 2 . 2 3 3 2 - . 3 6 3 2 0 1 4 5 - . 1615 . 1347 2 1 3 2 . 1655 - . 3 2 2 7 1669 - . 0 8 9 2 . 1674 1968 . 0 6 4 1 . 2 0 6 1 2 4 6 5 . 2 2 4 9 - . 3 1 3 1 1007 - . 3 0 5 9 . 0 2 2 5 1729 - . 4541 * - . 0 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 . 1437 . 8 3 5 5 1437 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 5 4 7 8 3 5 5 " . 0 5 4 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 3 5 7 9 . 4 9 0 2 * . 3 5 3 4 1871 - . 4 3 2 6 * . 2 0 3 5 321 1 - . 2 8 1 4 . 2 4 8 0 2501 - . 0 3 1 6 . 1696 1442 - . 0 5 8 0 - . 0 2 3 3 2 2 5 3 - . 2 3 3 1 . 3 5 4 2 0 3 8 2 - . 0 5 5 6 . 0 1 1 4 S I G N I F . L E . 0 1 AOA LOR AOC GENDER SCHOOL GRADE F E ME FHKO MHKO FCO MCO S E B MSEB S C B MSCB RC F R E Q S C F S C H S I G N I F . LE . 0 0 1 ( 1 - T A I L E D , MCO S E B MSEB . 0 4 2 4 - . 1665 . 1582 - . 3 7 1 8 . 2 8 7 8 . 1220 - . 1600 - . 0 2 2 5 . 2 4 0 9 - . 0 9 9 6 . 0 6 4 7 . 1 1 9 3 . 0 9 7 5 . 3 4 9 7 . 2 4 4 3 - . 0 7 6 0 - . 0 6 8 3 . 2 0 7 7 - . 1394 . 4 1 8 7 ' . 2 3 4 7 - . 5 5 2 3 * * . 6 0 9 3 * * . 4 5 3 8 * . 3 5 7 9 . 1 8 7 1 . 321 1 . 4 9 0 2 * - . 4 3 2 6 * - . 2 8 1 4 . 3 5 3 4 . 2 0 3 5 . 2 4 8 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 4 7 4 2 * - . 3 1 8 8 - . 4 7 4 2 * 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 8 0 2 3 * - . 3 1 8 8 . 8 0 2 3 " 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 1 142 . 0 1 0 0 . 4 5 1 4 ' . 2 0 4 2 - . 1325 - . 1 6 4 4 . 2 8 8 8 . 0 7 8 7 . 1804 . 3 5 5 8 - . 0 9 4 5 - . 1430 P R I N T E D I F A C O E F F I C I E N T CANNOT BE COMPUTED) SCB 0 0 0 0 MSCB . 4 7 5 4 ' - . 2 2 5 9 . 3949 - . 1303 - . 0 1 1 4 . 3 4 9 5 - . 0 2 4 7 . 0 3 9 7 . 2 5 0 1 - . 0 3 1 6 . 1696 . 1 142 . 0 1 0 0 . 4 5 1 4 ' 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 0 3 5 6 . 2 1 4 0 . 0 3 4 7 RC - . 2 5 3 8 - . 1055 - . 3 3 6 3 - . 2 0 4 1 . 1807 - . 3 0 6 6 . 2 3 0 0 - . 2 3 6 3 - . 1442 - . 0 5 8 0 - . 0 2 3 3 . 2 0 4 2 - . 1325 - . 1 6 4 4 - . 0 3 5 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 6 6 6 1 ' - . 0 6 2 1 F R E Q S C - . 2 3 1 4 - . 1395 - . 3 3 0 7 - . 1636 . 2 7 0 4 - . 2 8 8 3 . 1876 . 0 0 0 5 . 2 2 5 3 - . 2 3 3 1 . 3 5 4 2 . 2 8 8 8 . 0 7 8 7 . 1804 . 2 1 4 0 . 6 6 6 1 * 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 1 8 2 3 F S C H . 1368 . 0 0 8 8 . 1546 - . 2 4 6 8 . 2 7 5 9 . 1496 - . 0 8 7 6 - . 0 4 2 8 . 0 3 8 2 - . 0 5 5 6 . 0 1 1 4 . 3 5 5 8 - . 0 9 4 5 - . 1 4 3 0 . 0 3 4 7 - . 0 6 2 1 . 1823 1 . 0 0 0 0 S I G N I F . L E .01 S I G N I F . LE . 0 0 1 ( 1 - T A I L E D , " P R I N T E D I F A C O E F F I C I E N T CANNOT BE COMPUTED) 130 APPENDIX F L i s t of A b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r Appendix E AOA — Age on A r r i v a l LOR - Length of Residence AOC - Age of C h i l d FE - F a t h e r ' s Education ME - Mother's Education FHKO - F a t h e r ' s Occupation < HK) MHKO - Mother's Occupation <HK) FCO - F a t h e r ' s Occupation (Canada) MCO - Mother's Occupation (Canada) SEB - Whether the C h i l d S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before MSEB - Months of Studying E n g l i s h Before SCB - Whether the C h i l d S t u d i e d Chinese Before MSCB - Months of Studying Chinese Before RC - Whether the C h i l d was R e c e i v i n g Education in Chinese FREQSC - Frequency of Studying Chinese FSCH - Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home 131 APPENDIX G R e s u l t s of A l l the M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses f o r S u b j e c t s ' Performance on the HK-WISC. SB: FE. and WLPB I. Stage 1: A. HK-WISC (1) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Ful1 Seal e Scores with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and Length of Residence (LOR) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .26 .07 .07 1.01 1.01 LOR Fu11 Equ. Both .26 .07 .07 1.01 1.01 (2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .32 . 10 . 10 1 .68 1 .68 LOR F u l l Equ. Both .32 . 10 .10 1.68 1.68 (3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .14 .02 .02 .28 .28 LOR F u l l Equ. Both . 14 .02 .02 .28 .28 132 (4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a l e Scores with Gender and Age of C h i l d (AOC) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .22 .05 .05 .70 .70 Gender Ful 1 Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .70 .70 (5) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender .39 .16 .16 5.52* 5.52 2 AOC .40 . 16 .00 2.71 .08 Ful 1 Equ. Both .40 .16 .16 2.71 2.71 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (6) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .06 .00 .00 .05 .05 Gender Ful 1 Equ. Both .06 .00 .00 .05 .05 (7) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Ful1 Seal e Scores with School 1 and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > . 12 .01 .01 .20 .20 School Ful 1 Equ. Both .12 .01 .01 .20 .20 133 (8) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > .12 .01 .01 .21 .21 School F u l l Equ. Both .12 .01 .01 .21 .21 (9) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance Scale Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh ~I Grade > .07 .00 .00 .07 .07 School F u l l Equ. Both .07 .00 .00 .07 .07 (10 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a l e Scores with F a t h e r ' s Education (FE) and Mother's Education (ME) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh ~1 ME > .13 .02 .02 .23 .23 FE F u l l Equ. Both .13 .02 .02 .23 .23 134 (11) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .26 .07 .07 1.06 1 .06 FE Ful 1 Equ. Both .26 .07 .07 1.06 1 .06 (12) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .27 .08 .08 1 .18 1 .18 FE Ful 1 Equ. Both .27 .08 .08 1 .18 1 .18 (13) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Ful1 Scale Scores with Father 's Occupation in HK (FHKO) and Mother's Occupat i on in HK (MHKO) Enter e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > . 19 .04 .04 .54 .54 FHKO Ful 1 Equ. Both .19 .04 .04 .54 .54 135 (14) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with FHKO and MHKO Entere d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > . 13 .02 .02 .27 .27 FHKO Ful 1 Equ. Both .13 .02 .02 .27 .27 (15) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > .23 .06 .06 .84 .84 FHKO Ful 1 Equ. Both .23 .06 .06 .84 .84 (16) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a l e Scores with F a t h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) and Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .10 .01 .01 .14 .14 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .10 .01 .01 .14 .14 136 (17) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .14 .02 .02 .30 .30 FCO Ful 1 Equ. Both .14 .02 .02 .30 .30 (18) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance Seal le Scores with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .04 .00 .00 .02 .02 FCO Ful 1 Equ. Both .04 .00 .00 .02 .02 (19) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a l e Scores with S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) and Months of Studying E n g l i s h Before (MSEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 SEB F u l l Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 137 (20) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > . 10 .01 .01 .14 .14 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .10 .01 .01 .14 . 14 <21) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' HK Performance Scale • Scores with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .11 .01 .01 .16 .16 SEB F u l l Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 .16 .16 <22) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK F u l l S c a l e Scores with S t u d i e d Chinese Before (SCB) and Months of Studying Chinese Before (MSCB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .08 .01 .01 . 18 .18 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .08 .01 .01 . 18 . 18 (23) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .12 .01 .01 .44 .44 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .12 .01 .01 .44 .44 138 (24) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with SCB and MSCB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MSCB .04 .00 .00 .06 .06 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .04 .00 .00 .06 .06 (25) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Fu11 Sc a l e Scores with Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH). R e c e i v i n g Education in Chinese (RC). and Freauencv of Studying Chinese (FREQSC) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC / .31 .09 .09 .96 .96 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .31 .09 .09 .96 .96 (26) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with FSCH. RC . and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC / .26 .07 .07 .68 .68 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .26 .07 .07 .68 .68 (27) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with FSCH. RC . and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC / .41 . 17 . 17 1 .89 1 .89 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .41 .17 .17 1.89 1.89 139 B. SB: FE (1) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and Length of Residence (LOR) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOA > .23 .05 .05 .83 .83 LOR Ful 1 Equ. Both .23 .05 .05 .83 .83 (2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning Standard Age Scores (SAS) with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .38 . 14 .14 2.38 2.38 LOR Ful 1 Equ. Both .38 .14 .14 2.38 2.38 (3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA and ; LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .31 . 10 . 10 1 .59 1 .59 LOR Ful 1 Equ. Both .31 . 10 .10 1 .59 1 .59 140 <4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with AOA and LOR Step Entered V a r i a b l e C s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOA > LOR .21 .05 .05 .69 .69 Ful 1 Equ. Both .21 .05 .05 .69 .69 (5) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > LOR . 18 .03 .03 .51 .51 F u l l Equ. Both .18 .03 .03 .51 .51 <6> M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 LOR .35 .13 . 13 4.27* 4.27 2 AOA .38 . 15 .02 2.46 .70 F u l l Equ. Both .38 . 15 . 15 2.46 2.46 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 leve 1 <7> M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .06 .00 .00 .05 .05 LOR F u l l Equ. Both .06 .00 .00 .05 .05 141 (8) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects'" SB Test Composites with Gender and Age of C h i l d (AOC) Ente r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .22 .05 .05 .73 .73 Gender F u l l Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .73 .73 (9) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 Gender F u l l Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 (10) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .23 .05 .05 .82 .82 Gender F u l l Equ. Both .23 .05 .05 .82 .82 142 (11) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender .45 .20 .20 7.64** 7.64 2 AOC .47 .21 .01 4.01* .50 Ful 1 Equ. Both .47 .21 .21 4.01* 4.01 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the . 05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the . 01 l e v e l (12) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .16 .03 .03 .39 .39 Gender Ful 1 Equ. Both . 16 .03 .03 .39 .39 (13) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .11 .01 .01 . 19 . 19 Gender Ful 1 Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 . 19 .19 143 < 14) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal Reason i ncr/Vi sua! 1 i z at i on F a c t o r Scores with Gender and AOC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOC > Gender .26 .07 .07 1.05 1.05 Ful 1 Equ. Both .26 .07 .07 1.05 1.05 (15) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School . 12 .01 .01 .21 .21 Ful 1 Equ. Both . 12 .01 .01 .21 .21 (16) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School .11 .01 .01 .19 . 19 Ful 1 Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 . 19 .19 144 (17) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects'' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with ! School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School .20 .04 .04 .63 .63 Ful 1 Equ. Both .20 .04 .04 .63 .63 ( 18) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e '. Reasoning SAS with School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School .25 .06 .06 .96 .96 Ful 1 Equ. Both .25 .06 .06 .96 .96 (19) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School .23 .05 .05 .82 .82 Ful 1 Equ. Both .23 .05 .05 .82 .82 (20) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehensi on F a c t o r Scores with School and Grade Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School .08 .01 .01 .09 .09 Ful 1 Equ. Both .08 .01 .01 .09 .09 145 (21 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n a / V i s u a 1 i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > . 12 .01 .01 .21 .21 School Ful 1 Equ. Both .12 .01 .01 .21 .21 (22) M u l t i p l e Repression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Father' s Education (FE) and Mother's Education (ME) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .15 .02 .02 .31 .31 FE Ful 1 Equ. Both .15 .02 .02 .31 .31 (23) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .35 . 12 . 12 1.98 1.98 FE F u l l Equ. Both .35 .12 .12 1.98 1.98 146 (24) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasonina SAS with FE and ME Step Entered Cum. Cum. V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 ME > .20 .04 FE .04 .61 .61 Ful 1 Equ. Both .20 .04 .04 .61 .61 (25) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with : FE and ME Step Entered Cum. Cum. V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh Cum. F . FCh 1 ME > .09 .01 .01 .12 .12 FE F u l l Equ. Both .09 .01 .01 .12 .12 (26) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .20 .04 .04 .60 .60 FE F u l l Equ. Both .20 .04 .04 .60 .60 (27) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME .37 . 13 .13 4.68* 4.68 2 FE .38 .14 .01 2.41 .25 Ful 1 Equ. Both .38 .14 .14 2.41 2.41 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 147 (28) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with FE and ME Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 ME > FE .22 .05 .05 .72 .72 Ful 1 Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .72 .72 (29) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with F a t h e r ' s Occupation in HK (FHKO) and Mother's Occupation in HK (MHKO) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MHKO > FHKO .22 .05 .05 .76 .76 Ful 1 Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .76 .76 (30) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with FHKO and MHKO Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MHKO • > FHKO .07 .00 .00 .06 .06 F u l l Equ. Both .07 .00 .00 .06 .06 148 (31) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > .03 .00 .00 .02 .02 FHKO Ful 1 Equ. Both .03 .00 .00 .02 .02 (32) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' SB Quant i t a t i ve Reasoning SAS with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > .30 .09 .09 1.41 1 .41 FHKO Ful 1 Equ. Both .30 .09 .09 1.41 1.41 (33) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKO .42 .17 . 17 6.36* 6.36 2 MHKO .42 .17 .00 3.10 .04 Ful 1 Equ. Both .42 . 17 . 17 3.10 3.10 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (34) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh MHKO > .19 .04 .04 .53 .53 FHKO F u l l Equ. Both .19 .04 .04 .53 .53 149 (35) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s l s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal Reason i ng/V i sua 1 Ii zat i on F a c t o r Scores with FHKO and MHKO Step E n t e r e d V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MHKO > FHKO .29 .08 .08 1.33 1 .33 Ful 1 Equ. Both .29 .08 .08 1.33 1.33 (36) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with F a t h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) and Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO) Step Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO > FCO .25 .06 .06 .96 .96 Ful 1 Equ. Both .25 .06 .06 .96 .96 (37) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 FCO .43 .19 .05 3.31 1 .77 Ful 1 Equ. Both .43 . 19 . 19 3.31 3.31 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 150 (38) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .11 .01 .01 .18 .18 (39) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .16 .03 .03 .38 .38 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .16 .03 .03 .38 .38 (40) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FCO .36 . 13 . 13 4.47* 4.47 2 MCO .40 .16 .03 2.69 .92 Ful 1 Equ. Both .40 .16 .16 2.69 2.69 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 151 (41) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Subjects"' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 .15 . 15 5.40* 5.40 2 FCO .40 . 16 .01 2.76 .25 Ful 1 Equ. Both .40 . 16 . 16 2.76 2.76 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <42) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with FCO and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .27 .07 .07 1.16 1 .16 FCO Ful 1 Equ. Both .27 .07 .07 1.16 1 .16 (43) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) and Months of Stud y i n g E n g l i s h Before (MSEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .18 .03 .03 .49 .49 SEB F u l l Equ. Both .18 .03 .03 .49 .49 152 (44) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .33 .11 .11 1 .78 1 .78 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .33 .11 .11 1.78 1.78 (45) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .23 .05 .05 .81 .81 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .23 .05 .05 .81 .81 (46) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > SEB .28 .08 .08 1 .25 1 .25 Ful 1 Equ. Both .28 .08 .08 1 .25 1 .25 (47) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with SEB and MSEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MSEB > SEB .14 .02 .02 .28 .28 Ful 1 Equ. Both .14 .02 .02 .28 .28 153 (48) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 . 13 . 13 4.53* 4.53 2 MSEB .36 .13 .00 2.20 .02 Ful 1 Equ. Both .36 .13 .13 2.20 2.20 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (49) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal Reason i ng/V i sua 1i zat i on F a c t o r Scores with SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .08 .01 .01 .09 .09 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .08 .01 .01 .09 .09 (50) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Studi ed Chinese Before (SCB) and Months of Studying Chinese Before (MSCB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .02 .00 .00 .01 .01 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .02 .00 .00 .01 .01 (51 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .02 .00 .00 .02 .02 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .02 .00 .00 .02 .02 154 <52) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB . 14 .02 .02 .62 .62 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB . 14 .02 .02 .62 .62 <53) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' SB Quant i t a t i ve Reason i ng SAS with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB . 19 .04 .04 1.10 1.10 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB . 19 .04 .04 1.10 1.10 (54) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .10 .01 .01 .31 .31 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB . 10 .01 .01 .31 .31 <55) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .08 .01 .01 . 19 . 19 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .08 .01 .01 . 19 .19 I 155 (56) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .02 .00 .00 .01 .01 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .02 .00 .00 .01 .01 (57) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH). R e c e i v i n g Education in Chinese (RC). and Frequency of Studying Chinese (FREQSC) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r l a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .34 .12 .12 1 .22 1 .22 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .34 .12 . 12 1 .22 1 .22 (58) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 FSCH RC > FREQSC .36 .41 .13 .17 .13 .04 4.51* 1 .90 4.51 .65 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .41 .17 . 17 1 .90 1.90 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 156 (59) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCN FSCH > RC/ .30 .09 .09 .94 .94 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .30 .09 .09 .94 .94 (60) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .13 .02 .02 .17 .17 Ful 1 Equ.All Three . 13 .02 .02 . 17 .17 (61 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .32 .11 .11 1 .10 1 .10 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 .11 .11 1 .10 1.10 (62) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehensi on Fac t o r Scores with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .34 . 12 .12 1 .23 1 .23 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .34 .12 .12 1 .23 1 .23 157 (63) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' SB Nonverbal Reasoning/Visualization Factor Scores with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > .26 .07 .07 .66 .66 RC/ Full Equ.All Three .26 .07 .07 .66 .66 C. WLPB (1) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and Length of Residence (LOR) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA > .33 .11 .11 1 .71 1 .71 LOR Full Equ. Both .33 .11 .11 1 .71 1.71 (2) Multiple Regression Analysis for SubJ ects' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with AOA and LOR Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .38 . 15 . 15 5.21* 5.21 2 LOR .38 . 15 .00 2.52 .00 Full Equ. Both .38 .15 . 15 2.52 2.52 Note. * - Si g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level 158 <3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Wr i t t e n Language Standard Scores with AOA and LOR Entere d Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOA > LOR .22 .05 .05 .70 .70 F u l l Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .70 .70 (4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Subjects'' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with AOA i and LOR Entered Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOA 2 LOR .37 .37 .14 . 14 . 14 .00 4.68* 2.31 4.68 .09 F u l l Equ. Both .37 .14 . 14 2.31 2.31 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <5) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Gender and Age of C h i l d (AOC) Entered Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOC > Gender .25 .06 .06 .94 .94 F u l l Equ. Both .25 .06 .06 .94 .94 159 <6) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .33 .11 .11 1 .75 1 .75 Gender F u l l Equ. Both .33 .11 .11 1 .75 1.75 (7) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Subj e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language Standard Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOC > .32 .10 . 10 1 .67 1 .67 Gender F u l l Equ. Both .32 . 10 . 10 1.67 1.67 (8) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with Gender and AOC Entered Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOC > Gender .34 .12 .12 1 .94 1 .94 F u l l Equ. Both .34 . 12 . 12 1 .94 1 .94 (9) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Sub j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with School and Grade Entered Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Grade > School . 14 .02 .02 .27 .27 F u l l Equ. Both .14 .02 .02 .27 .27 160 (10) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > .18 .03 .03 .46 .46 School F u l l Equ. Both .18 .03 .03 .46 .46 (11) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Wr i t t e n Language Standard Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > .07 .01 .01 .08 .08 School F u l l Equ. Both .07 .01 .01 .08 .08 (12) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with School and Grade Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Grade > .18 .03 .03 .47 .47 School F u l l Equ. Both .18 .03 .03 .47 .47 161 (13) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h F a t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (FE) and Mother's E d u c a t i o n (ME) E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .34 . 12 .12 1 .94 1 .94 FE Fu l 1 Equ. Both .34 . 12 . 12 1 .94 1.94 ( 14) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB ] Readi ng S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FE and ME E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > . 19 .03 .03 .53 .53 FE Ful I Equ. Both .19 .03 .03 .53 .53 ( 15) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FE and ME E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .32 . 10 .10 1 .69 1 .69 FE Ful 1 Equ. Both .32 .10 . 10 1 .69 1.69 162 (16) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with FE and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME > .23 .05 .05 .78 .78 FE Full Equ. Both .23 .05 .05 .78 .78 (17) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Father's Occupation in Hong Kong (FHKO) and Mother's Occupation in Hong Kong (MHKO) Entered Step Variable(s) 1 MHKO > FHKO Full Equ. Both Cum. Cum. MultR Rsq .05 .00 .05 .00 Cum. RsqCh F FCh .00 .04 .04 .00 .04 .04 (18) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > .24 .06 .06 .92 .92 FHKO Full Equ. Both .24 .06 .06 .92 .92 163 (19) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language Standard Scores with FHKO and MHKO Step Entered V a r l a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MHKO > FHKO .17 .03 .03 .42 .42 Ful 1 Equ. Both . 17 .03 .03 .42 .42 <20) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with FHKO and MHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MHKO > .18 .03 .03 .49 .49 FHKO F u l l Equ. Both .18 .03 .03 .49 .49 (21) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with F a t h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) and Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .22 .05 .05 .72 .72 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .22 .05 .05 .72 .72 164 (22) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Readin g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO and MCO E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .04 .00 .00 .03 .03 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .04 .00 .00 .03 .03 (23) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO and MCO E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO • > .15 .02 .02 .34 .34 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .15 .02 .02 .34 .34 (24) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO and MCO E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO > .12 .01 .01 .22 .22 FCO F u l l Equ. Both .12 .01 .01 .22 .22 165 (25) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e (SEB) and Months of S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e (MSEB) E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 . 13 .13 4.60* 4.60 2 MSEB .37 .13 .00 2.27 .08 F u l 1 Equ. Both .37 .13 . 13 2.27 2.27 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (26) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Readin g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SEB and MSEB E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .27 .07 .07 1.11 1.11 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .27 .07 .07 1.11 1.11 (27) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SEB and MSEB E n t e r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .30 .09 .09 1 .46 1 .46 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .30 .09 .09 1 .46 1.46 166 (28) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores wi th SEB and MSEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSEB > .29 .08 .08 1 .30 1 .30 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Both .29 .08 .08 1.30 1 .30 (29) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Studied Chinese Before (SCB) and Months of Studying Chinese Before (MSCB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .17 .03 .03 .86 .86 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .17 .03 .03 .86 .86 (30) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .27 .07 .07 2.40 2.40 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .27 .07 .07 2.40 2.40 (31 ) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' WLPB Wr i tten Language Standard Scores with SCB and MSCB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MSCB .09 .01 .01 .24 .24 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .09 .01 .01 .24 .24 16? (32) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects'' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with SCB and MSCB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MSCB .21 .04 .04 1.37 1 .37 Ful 1 Equ. MSCB .21 .04 .04 1 .37 1.37 (33) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at 1 Home (FSCH). R e c e i v i n g Education in Chinese (RC). and Frequency of Studying Chinese (FREQSC) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .23 .05 .05 .52 .52 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .23 .05 .05 .52 .52 (34) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' WLPB Readi ng Standard Scores with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ .11 .01 .01 .12 .12 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .11 .01 .01 .12 . 12 168 (35) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Wr i t t e n Language Standard Scores with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FREQSCN FSCH > RC/ .20 .04 .04 .38 .38 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .20 .04 .04 .38 .38 (36) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FREQSCN FSCH > RC/ .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 F u l l Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 I I . Stage 2; A. HK-WISC Since gender was the only s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r i d e n t i f i e d in Stage 1, i t was not combined with any p r e d i c t o r s f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y ses at t h i s stage. B. SB tFE (1) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Length of Residence (LOR). Mother's Education (ME), and Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN LOR > .29 .09 .09 .89 .89 MCO/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .29 .09 .09 .89 .89 169 (2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and MCO Enter e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i able< s> Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 .14 4. 73* 4.73 2 LOR > .47 .22 .08 2.62 1 .49 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .47 .22 .22 2.62 2.62 Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <3> M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN LOR > MCO/ .34 .12 .12 1 .24 1 .24 Ful1 Equ. A l l Three .34 .12 . 12 1 .24 1 .24 (4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS wi th LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Step V a r i a b l e C s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN LOR > MCO/ .08 .01 .01 .07 .07 Ful1 Equ. Al1 Three .08 .01 .01 .07 .07 170 (5) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable(s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME\ LOR > .29 .08 .08 .85 .85 MCO/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .29 .08 .08 .85 .85 <6) Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' SB Verbal Comprehension Factor Scores with LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step VariableCs) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 . 15 .15 5.40* 5.40 2 LOR > .49 .24 .09 2.97* 1 .63 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.97 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level <7> Multiple Regression Analvsis for Subjects' SB Nonverbal Reasoning/Visualization Factor Scores with LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Vari able<s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN LOR > .26 .07 .07 .68 .68 MCO/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .26 .07 .07 .68 .68 171 (8) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Length of Residence (LOR). Mother's Education (ME), and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN LOR > SEB/ .27 .07 .07 .74 .74 F u l l Equ. A l l Three .27 .07 .07 .74 .74 (9) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN LOR > SEB/ .46 .21 .21 2.51 2.51 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .46 .21 .21 2.51 2.51 (10) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and SEB Step Entered Cum. Cum. V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN LOR > .39 .15 .15 1.65 1.65 SEB/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .39 .15 .15 1.65 1.65 172 < 11) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN LOR > SEB/ .14 .02 .02 .20 .20 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .14 .02 .02 .20 .20 <12) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. ME. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN LOR > SEB/ .14 .02 .02 .20 .20 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .14 .02 .02 .20 .20 (13) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal I v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehensi on Fac t o r Scores with LOR. ME. and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 ME LOR > SEB .37 .49 .13 .23 . 13 .10 4.68* 2.87 4.68 1 .84 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .23 .23 2.87 2.87 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 173 (14) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with LOR. ME. and SEB Step E n t e r e d V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 ME\ LOR > SEB/ .23 .05 .05 .50 .50 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .23 .05 .05 .50 .50 (15) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Length of Residence (LOR). Mother's Education (ME). and Freauencv of Speak i ng Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > LOR/ .38 . 15 . 15 1 .59 1 .59 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .38 .15 . 15 1 .59 1.59 < 16) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 3 FSCH LOR ME .36 .50 .57 . 13 .25 .33 .13 .12 .08 4.51* 4.92* 4.57* 4.51 4.77 3.13 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .57 .33 .33 4.57* 4.57 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 174 (17) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .42 .18 . 18 2.02 2.02 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .42 . 18 .18 2.02 2.02 (18) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with LOR. ME. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .11 .01 .01 .12 .12 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .11 .01 .01 . 12 . 12 (19) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. ME. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > LOR/ Ful1 Equ. A l l Three .34 .11 .11 1.21 1.21 .34 .11 .11 1.21 1.21 175 (20) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension Factor Scores with LOR. ME. and FSCH Step Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 ME FSCH > LOR .37 .57 . 13 .32 .13 . 19 4.68* 4.43* 4.68 3.86 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .57 .32 .32 4.43* 4.43 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (21 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with LOR. ME. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > LOR/ .27 .07 .07 .76 .76 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .27 .07 .07 .76 .76 (22) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' SB Test Composi t e s wi th Length of Residence (LOR). Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO). and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) Step Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCON LOR > SEB/ .28 .08 .08 .77 .77 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .28 .08 .08 .77 .77 176 (23) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and SEB Ente r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 . 14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 LOR > .46 .21 .07 2.47 1 .29 SEB Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .46 .21 .21 2.47 2.47 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (24) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i able< s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ LOR > .25 .06 .06 .62 .62 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .25 .06 .06 .62 .62 (25) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' 33 Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i able< s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ LOR > .08 .01 .01 .06 .06 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .08 .01 .01 .06 .06 177 (26) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ LOR > .28 .08 .08 .80 .80 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .28 .08 .08 .80 .80 (27) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 .15 . 15 5.40* 5.40 2 LOR > .48 .23 .08 2.82 1 .46 SEB Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .48 .23 .23 2.82 2.82 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (28) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ LOR > .11 .01 .01 .11 .11 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .11 .01 .01 .11 .11 178 (29) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Sub.iects / SB Test Composites with Length of Residence (LOR). Mother' s Occupation in Canada (MCO) . and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .38 .15 . 15 1 .60 1 .60 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .38 .15 .15. 1.60 1 .60 (30) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum, Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 . 14 4.73* 4.73 2 FSCH > .52 .27 . 13 3.45* 2.56 LOR Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .52 .27 .27 3.45* 3.45 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (31 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .38 .14 .14 1 .57 1 .57 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .38 .14 . 14 1 .57 1 .57 179 (32) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > LOR/ .09 .01 .01 .07 .07 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .09 .01 .01 .07 .07 (33) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > LOR/ .37 . 13 .13 1 .44 1 .44 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .37 .13 .13 1 .44 1 .44 (34) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehensi on Fa c t o r Scores with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 MCO FSCH > LOR .39 .51 .15 .26 .15 .11 5.40* 3.26* 5.40 2.00 Ful 1 E q u . A l l Three .51 .26 .26 3.26* 3.26 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 180 (35) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal Reason i na/V i sua l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with LOR. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 (36) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Length of Residence (LOR). Studi ed E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Freauencv of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .39 .15 . 15 1 .67 1 .67 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .39 . 15 . 15 1.67 1 .67 (37) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 .13 .13 4.51* 4.51 2 LOR .50 .25 . 12 4.92* 4.77 3 SEB .54 .29 .04 3.91* 1 .67 Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .54 .29 .29 3.91* 3.91 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 181 (38) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .37 . 14 .14 1 .48 1 .48 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .37 . 14 .14 1 .48 1.48 (39) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > . 10 .01 .01 .10 . 10 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three . 10 .01 .01 .10 .10 (40) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .34 .12 .12 1.23 1.23 SEB/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .34 .12 .12 1.23 1.23 182 (41) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 .13 . 13 4.53* 4.53 2 FSCH > .54 .29 .16 3.79* 3.10 LOR Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .54 .29 .29 3.79* 3.79 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (42) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t ion F a c t o r Scores with LOR. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 (43) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Mother' s Education (ME). Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO). and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN MCO > .30 .09 .09 .96 .96 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .30 .09 .09 .96 .96 183 (44) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 2 SEB > .42 ME F u l l Equ. A l l Three .42 Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (45) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN MCO > .38 .14 .14 1 .55 1 .55 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .38 . 14 . 14 1 .55 1.55 (46) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME\ MCO > . 14 .02 .02 .18 . 18 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .14 .02 .02 .08 . 18 .14 .14 .18 .04 .18 .18 4.73* 4.73 1.99 .67 1.99 1.99 184 < 47) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN MCO > .29 .08 .08 .86 .86 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .29 .08 .08 .86 .86 (48) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 .15 . 15 5.40* 5.40 2 SEB > .45 .20 .05 2.37 .88 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .45 .20 .20 2.37 2.37 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <49) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t ion F a c t o r Scores with ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN MCO > .29 .09 .09 .87 .87 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .29 .09 .09 .87 .87 185 (50) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Mother's Education (ME). Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .34 . 12 .12 1 .25 1.25 ME/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .34 .12 . 12 1.25 1.25 (51) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 FSCH > .49 .24 . 10 3.01tt 2.00 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 3.01* 3.01 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the . 05 l e v e l (52) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO . and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .35 .12 .12 1 .30 1 .30 ME/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .35 .12 . 12 1 .30 1.30 186 (53) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with ME. MCO. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > ME/ .12 .01 .01 . 13 . 13 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .12 .01 .01 .13 . 13 (54) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memorv SAS with ME. MCO. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > ME/ .37 .13 . 13 1 .44 1 .44 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .37 .13 . 13 1 .44 1 .44 (55) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Vera! 1 Comprehensi on Fac t o r Scores with ME. MCO. and FSCH Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 2 MCO FSCH > ME .39 .49 .15 .24 .15 .09 5.40* 2.98* 5.40 1 .65 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 2.98* 2.98 Note• * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 187 (56) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonveral R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with ME. MCO. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .30 .09 .09 .92 .92 ME/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .30 .09 .09 .92 .92 (57) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composi t e s wi th Mother's Education (ME). S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME\ FSCH > .36 . 13 .13 1.38 1 .38 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .36 . 13 .13 1 .38 1 .38 (58) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 .13 . 13 4.51* 4.51 2 ME > .50 .25 . 12 3.15* 2,28 SEB Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .50 .25 .25 3.15* 3.15 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 188 (59) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with ME. SEB. and FSCH Enter e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .42 . 18 .18 2.03 2.03 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .42 .18 .18 2.03 2.03 <60) M u l t i p l e Regression Analvsl i s f o r Sub j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .16 .03 .03 .25 .25 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three . 16 .03 .03 .25 .25 <61) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .34 .11 .11 1.18 1.18 SEB/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .34 .11 .11 1.18 1.18 189 (62) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum, Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME .37 .13 .13 4.68* 4.68 2 FSCH > .50 .25 . 12 3.14* 2.18 SEB Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .50 .25 .25 3.14* 3.14 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (63) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEN FSCH > .31 .09 .09 .98 .98 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .31 .09 .09 .98 .98 (64) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Mother' s Occupation in Canada (MCO) S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB). and 1 Frequency • of Speaking Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r l a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ FSCH > .35 . 12 .12 1 .29 1 .29 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .35 . 12 .12 1 .29 1.29 190 (65) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 . 14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 FSCH > .49 .24 . 10 2.89 1 .84 SEB Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 2.89 2.89 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (66) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > .30 .09 .09 .95 .95 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .30 .09 .09 .95 .95 (67) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > .10 .01 .01 . 10 .10 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. Al1 Three .10 .01 .01 . 10 . 10 191 C68) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > .3? . 13 .13 1 .44 1 .44 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .37 .13 .13 1.44 1.44 <69) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 .15 . 15 5.40* 5.40 2 FSCH > .49 .24 .09 2.94 1 .60 SEB Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .49 .24 .24 2.94 2.94 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (70) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ FSCH > .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 SEB/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 192 (71) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with F a t h e r ' s Education ( F E ) . F a t h e r ' s Occupation i n Hong Kong (FHKO). and Fat h e r ' s Occupation in Canada (FCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh FCO\ FE > FHKO/ 22 ,05 ,05 49 49 F u l l Equ. A l l Three 22 .05 .05 ,49 49 (72) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with FE. FHKO. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FC0\ FE > .20 .04 .04 .38 .38 FHKO/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .20 .04 .04 .38 .38 (73) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with FE. FHKO. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FC0\ FE > .20 .04 .04 .40 .40 FHKO/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .20 .04 .04 .40 .40 193 (74) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with FE. FHKO. and FCO Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FCO\ FE > FHKO/ .15 .02 .02 .22 .22 Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .15 .02 .02 .22 .22 (75) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with FE. FHKO. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKO .42 .17 . 17 6.36* 6.36 2 FE > .44 . 19 .02 2.18 .25 FCO Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .44 . 19 .19 2.18 2.18 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (76) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal I v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with FE. FHKO. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FC0\ FE > .25 .06 .06 .62 .62 FHKO/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .25 .06 .06 .62 .62 194 (77) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with FE. FHKO. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FCO\ FE > .35 .12 .12 1 .28 1 .28 FHKO/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .35 .12 .12 1.28 1 .28 (78) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Mother' s Education (ME). Mother's Occupation i n Hong Kong (MHKO). and Mother 's Occupation in Canada (MCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ MHKO > .33 .11 .11 1 .17 1 .17 ME/ Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .33 .11 .11 1.17 1 .17 (79) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 . 14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 MHKO > .44 .20 .06 2.28 1 .04 ME Ful 1 Equ. A l l Three .44 .20 .20 2.28 2.28 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 195 (80) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh _ __ MHKO > .28 .08 .08 .81 .81 ME/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .28 .08 .08 .81 .81 (81) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh ~1 MC0\ MHKO > .29 .08 .08 .83 .83 ME/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .29 .08 .08 .83 .83 (82) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh _ __ MHKO > .29 .08 .08 .86 .86 ME/ F u l l Equ. A l l Three .29 .08 .08 .86 .86 196 (83) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 . 15 .15 5.40* 5.40 2 MHKO > .45 .20 .05 2.42 .94 ME Ful1 Equ. Al1 Three .45 .20 .20 2.42 2.42 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (84) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal I v s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ MHKO > .31 .10 .10 1.01 1.01 ME/ Ful1 Equ. A l l Three .31 .10 .10 1.01 1.01 C. WLPB (1) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and Stu d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 .13 . 13 4.60* 4.60 2 AOA .44 . 19 .06 3.45* 2.12 F u l l Equ. Both .44 .19 .19 3.45* 3.45 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 19? <2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with AOA and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .38 . 15 . 15 5.21* 5.21 2 SEB .40 .16 .01 2.74 .37 F u l l Equ. Both .40 .16 .16 2.74 2.74 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 leve 1 <3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Su b j e c t s ' WLPB W r i t t e n Language Standard Scores with AOA and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB > .32 .11 .11 1 .71 1 .71 AOA F u l l Equ. Both .32 .11 .11 1.71 1 .71 <4> M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with AOA and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .37 . 14 .14 4.68* 4.68 2 SEB .42 . 18 .04 3.09 1 .43 Ful 1 Equ. Both .42 . 18 .18 3.09 3.09 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 198 I I I . Stage 3: A. HK-WISC (1) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Sub.i e c t s ' HK Ful1 Seal e Scores with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) . Length of Resi dence (LOR). and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender\ LOR > .33 .11 .11 1 .13 1.13 AOA/ F u l l Equ.All Three .33 .11 .11 1.13 1.13 (2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Verbal S c a l e Scores with AOA. LOR, and Gender Ente r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 Gender .39 . 16 . 16 5.52* 5.52 2 LOR > .51 .26 . 10 3.23* 1 .92 AOA Ful 1 Equ.All Three .51 .26 .26 3.23* 3.23 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with AOA. LOR. and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 GenderX LOR > .15 .02 .02 .21 .21 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .15 .02 .02 .21 .21 199 B. SB: FE CI) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence CLOR). and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 GenderN LOR > .32 . 10 .10 1 .04 1 .04 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 .10 1 .04 1.04 C2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 GenderX LOR > AOA/ .38 .14 .14 1 .54 1 .54 F u l l E qu.All Three .38 .14 .14 1 .54 1 .54 C3) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and Gender Entered Step V a r i a b l e C s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Gender\ LOR > AOA/ .35 .12 .12 1 .28 1 .28 F u l l Equ.All Three .35 .12 .12 1.28 1.28 200 (4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and Gender Step Entered V a r i a b l e < s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 Gender .45 .20 .20 7.64** 7.64 2 LOR > .47 .22 .02 2.61 .28 AOA Ful 1 Equ.All Three .47 .22 .22 2.61 2.61 Note. ** - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l <5) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and Gender Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 GenderX LOR > AOA/ .19 .04 .04 .36 .36 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .19 .04 .04 .36 .36 <6) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR, and Gender Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 LOR .35 . 13 .13 4.27* 4.27 2 Gender > .38 . 15 .02 1 .60 .35 AOA Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .38 . 15 . 15 1 .60 1 .60 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 201 (7) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR, and Gender Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 GenderX LOR > AOA/ .26 .07 .07 .70 .70 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .26 .07 .07 .70 .70 (8) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR), and Mother's Education (ME) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEX AOA > .23 .05 .05 .53 .53 LOR/ F u l l Equ.All Three .23 .05 .05 .53 .53 (9) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MEX AOA > .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.9? LOR/ F u l l Equ.All Three .49 .24 .24 2.97* 2.97 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 202 CIO) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and ME Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 ME\ AOA > LOR/ .35 . 13 . 13 1 .34 1 .34 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .35 .13 .13 1 .34 1 .34 (11) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Quant i t a t i ve Reason i ng SAS with AOA. LOR. and ME Step Entered Var i able< s) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MEN AOA > LOR/ .24 .06 .06 .58 .58 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .24 .06 .06 .58 .58 <12) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME\ AOA > .21 .05 .05 .45 .45 LOR/ F u l l E qu.All Three .21 .05 .05 .45 .45 203 (13) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR, and ME Ente r e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e C s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME .37 . 13 .13 4.68* 4.68 2 AOA > .51 .26 .13 3.33tt 2.43 LOR Ful 1 Equ.All Three .51 .26 .26 3.33* 3.33 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (14) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and ME Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e < s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 ME\ AOA > . 15 .02 .02 .23 .23 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .15 .02 .02 .23 .23 (15) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR). and F a t h e r ' s Occupation in Hong Kong (FHKO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKOX LOR > .32 .10 . 10 1 .03 1 .03 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 . 10 1.03 1 .03 204 (16) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and FHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKOX LOR > .38 . 14 .14 1 .55 1 .55 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .38 .14 . 14 1 .55 1.55 (17) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and FHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKOX LOR > AOA/ .32 .10 . 10 1 .03 1 .03 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 . 10 1 .03 1 .03 (18) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reason i ng SAS wi th AOA. LOR. and FHKO Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FHKOX LOR > AOA/ .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 205 (19) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and FHKO Enter e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHKO .42 .17 .17 6.36* 6.36 2 LOR > .50 .25 .08 3.11* 1 .40 AOA Ful 1 Equ.All Three .50 .25 .25 3.11* 3.11 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (20) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal I v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and FHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 LOR .35 . 13 . 13 4.27* 4.27 2 FHKO > .43 . 19 .06 2.15 1 .08 AOA V Ful 1 Equ.A11 Three .43 .19 .19 2.15 2.15 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (21 ) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and FHKO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FHK0\ LOR > .25 .06 .06 .60 .60 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .25 .06 .06 .60 .60 206 (22) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR), and F a t h e r ' s Occupation i n Canada (FCO) Enter e d Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FC0\ LOR > .34 .12 .12 1 .23 1 .23 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .34 . 12 .12 1 .23 1.23 (23) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and FCO Step Entered Cum. Cum. V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FC0\ LOR > .38 .14 . 14 1 .54 1 .54 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .38 .14 . 14 1 .54 1 .54 (24) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh _ ___ LOR > .34 .12 .12 1.26 1.26 AOA/ F u l l Equ.All Three .34 .12 .12 1.26 1.26 207 <25) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and FCO Step Entered Variable<s) Cum. MultR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 FCO\ LOR > AOA/ .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 (26) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Variable<s) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FCO .36 .13 . 13 4.47* 4.47 2 AOA .49 .24 .11 4.66* 4.34 3 LOR .49 .24 .00 3.00* .002 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .49 .24 .24 3.00* 3.00 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <27) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 LOR .35 . 13 .13 4.27* 4.27 2 FCO > .42 .17 .04 1 .95 .82 AOA Ful 1 Equ.All Three .42 ..17 . 17 1.95 1 .95 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 208 (28) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR, and FCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FCO\ LOR > .32 . 10 . 10 1 .04 1 .04 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 .10 1.04 1.04 (29) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composi t e s wi th Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR). and Mother's Occupation in Canada (MCO) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO\ AOA > .29 .08 .08 .84 .84 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .29 .08 .08 .84 .84 (30) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .37 .14 .14 4.73* 4.73 2 AOA > .47 .22 .08 2.63 1 .50 LOR Ful 1 Equ.All Three .47 .22 .22 2.63 2.63 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 209 (31) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and MCO Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO\ AOA > LOR/ .32 . 10 . 10 1 .05 1 .05 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 .10 1.05 1.05 (32) M u l t i p l e Regression Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reason i ng SAS with AOA. LOR. and MCO Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 MCO\ AOA > LOR/ .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 (33) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum, Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ AOA > .34 .12 .12 1.24 1.24 LOR/ F u l l Equ.All Three .34 .12 .12 1.24 1.24 210 (34) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension Factor Scores with AOA. LOR, and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MCO .39 .15 .15 5.40* 5.40 2 AOA > .49 .23 .08 2.88 1 .53 LOR Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .49 .23 .23 2.88 2.88 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l <35) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and MCO Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 MC0\ AOA > . 12 .01 .01 .13 .13 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .12 .01 .01 .13 .13 (36) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on , A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR). and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before • (SEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > .26 .07 .07 .67 .67 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .26 .07 .07 .67 .67 211 (37) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > LOR/ .44 .20 .20 2.27 2.27 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .44 .20 .20 2.27 2.27 (38) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum, Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > LOR/ .32 .10 .10 1.07 1 .07 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .32 . 10 . 10 1.07 1 .07 (39) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > LOR/ .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .48 .48 (40) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR. and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > LOR/ .21 .04 .04 .43 .43 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .21 .04 .04 .43 .43 212 (41) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR, and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 .13 .13 4.53* 4.53 2 AOA > .46 .21 .08 2.56 1 .50 LOR Ful 1 Equ.All Three .46 .21 .21 2.56 2.56 Note . # - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (42) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB\ AOA > .07 .00 .00 .05 .05 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .07 .00 .00 .05 .05 (43) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Test Composites with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). Length of Residence (LOR). and Frequency of Speak i ng Cantonese at Home (FSCH) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .38 .15 . 15 1 .59 1 .59 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .38 .15 . 15 1 .59 1 .59 213 (44) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Verbal Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR, and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH .36 . 13 . 13 4.51* 4.51 2 LOR .50 .25 . 12 4.92* 4.77 3 AOA .51 .26 .01 3.30* .30 Ful 1 Equ.All Three .51 .26 .26 3.30* 3.30 Note, . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (45) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .40 .16 .16 1 .81 1 .81 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .40 . 16 .16 1.81 1.81 (46) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning SAS with AOA. LOR. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .22 .05 .05 .47 .47 214 (47) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Short-Term Memory SAS with AOA. LOR, and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCHX LOR > .35 .12 .12 1 .30 1 .30 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .35 .12 .12 1.30 1.30 (48) M u l t i p l e Regression Anal l v s i s f o r SubJ e c t s ' SB Verbal Comprehension F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 LOR .35 . 13 . 13 4.27* 4.27 2 FSCH > .49 .24 .11 2.95 2.12 AOA Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .49 .24 .24 2.95 2.12 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (49) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n F a c t o r Scores with AOA. LOR. and FSCH Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 FSCH\ LOR > .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 AOA/ Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .22 .05 .05 .49 .49 C. WLPB CI) M u l t i p l e Repression A n a l v s i s f o r Subjects' 1 WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Acre on A r r i v a l (AOA). Lenctth of Residence (LOR) . and S t u d i e d Engl 1i sh Before (SEB) Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 SEB .36 . 13 . 13 4.60* 4.60 2 AOA > .44 .19 .06 2.25 1 .07 LOR F u l l Equ.A11 Three .44 .19 .19 2.25 2.25 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (2) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with AOA. LOR, and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step V a r i a b l e ( s ) MultR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 AOA .38 . 15 . 15 5.21* 5.21 2 SEB > .40 . 16 .01 1 .76 . 18 LOR Ful 1 Equ.All Three .40 . 16 . 16 1 .76 1 .76 Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l (3) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Wr i t t e n Language Standard Scores with AOA. LOR. and SEB Entered Cum. Cum. Cum. Step Var i a b l e ( s ) Mul tR Rsq RsqCh F FCh 1 A0A\ SEB > .38 .15 . 15 1 .62 1 .62 LOR/ Ful 1 Equ.All Three .38 .15 .15 1 .62 1.62 216 (4) M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with AOA. LOR, and SEB Step Entered V a r i a b l e ( s ) Cum. Mul tR Cum. Rsq RsqCh Cum. F FCh 1 AOA .37 . 14 . 14 4.68* 4.68 2 SEB > .43 .19 .05 2.14 .88 LOR Ful 1 Equ.Al1 Three .43 .19 . 19 2.14 2.14 Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 0
Unknown 3 0
Japan 3 0
Taiwan 2 0
China 2 11
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 5 0
Tokyo 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Taoyuan 2 0
Mountain View 2 0
Beijing 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054647/manifest

Comment

Related Items

Admin Tools

To re-ingest this item use button below, on average re-ingesting will take 5 minutes per item.

Reingest

To clear this item from the cache, please use the button below;

Clear Item cache