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 STUDENTS IN CANTONESE AND  IMMIGRANT  ENGLISH  by SUSANNE TAM B.A.(Honors), U n i v e r s i t y  o f M a n i t o b a , 1988  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE Educational  Psychology  We a c c e p t  this  STUDIES  and S p e c i a l  Education  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 August (c)Susanne  COLUMBIA  13, 1990 Tarn, 1990  if  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  degree at the  and  study. I further agree that permission for extensive  copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may or  by  his or  her  representatives.  be  granted by the head of  It is understood  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be  that  copying  allowed without my  permission.  Department of E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6  (2/88)  advanced  University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference department  requirements for an  A u g u s t 17,  19 9 0  and  Special  Education  my or  written  ABSTRACT A s s e s s i n g Engl Ish-as-a-second-1anguage their  native  result in  and second  in a better  t h e L2 a l o n e .  Kong-Wechsler  and  l a n g u a g e s <L1 & L2> i s l i k e l y t o  e s t i m a t e of t h e i r academic p o t e n t i a l In t h e p r e s e n t  Intelligence  Stanford-Binet  study,  Scale  Intelligence  Scale:  Kong. Their mean the  than  t h e Hong  f o r Children Fourth  t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y  administered  (ESL) c h i l d r e n i n  (HK-WISC), t h e  Edition  Battery  t o 32 C a n t o n e s e - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n  <SB: F E ) ,  (WLPB) were from  Hong  The mean age o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n was 11.01 y e a r s . mean age on a r r i v a l length  of r e s i d e n c e  multiple  regression  <A0A) was 9.27 y e a r s , w h i l e <L0R) was 1.74 y e a r s .  a n a l y s e s and a n a l y s i s  their  Results of  of  variance  indicated  that  variables  f o r ESL i m m i g r a n t ' s v e r b a l  addition,  variables  frequency  o f s p e a k i n g C a n t o n e s e a t home, g e n d e r , a n d h a v i n g  studied of  AOA a n d LOR a r e s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e  English  before  these c h i l d r e n ' s  high  nonverbal  English  as family  performance.  IQ m e a s u r e .  data  that  IQ m e a s u r e . Orientals  intellectual  suggests that,  i f f e a s i b l e , immigrant  i n both  profile.  LI a n d L 2 .  t o a s s e s s ESL immigrant  -  ii -  even  status,  predictions sample h a d a  of performance These  findings  have a  Finally,  this  children  s h o u l d be  Standardized  children,  In  o f p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e  However, t h i s p r o f i l e  characteristic  assessed  t o make  The p r e s e n t  profile  on t h e C h i n e s e  t o the cumulative  socioeconomic  are also useful  a n d low v e r b a l  was n o t p r e s e n t add  such  performance.  study  t e s t s c a n be u s e d  in their f i r s t  few  y e a r s of a r r i v a l assessment  s h o u l d be  can be made w i t h these r e s u l t s because children  t o a new  country.  kept  ill  -  the  comparisons However, a l l  extreme c a u t i o n  and m i s p l a c e m e n t  unacceptable.  -  that  results.  interpreted with  inappropriate labelling are  r e s u l t s of  as a r e c o r d so  f u t u r e assessment  n e e d t o be  The  of  these  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF TABLES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I.  xi  INTRODUCTION  1  1.1  1  Background of the Problem  1.2 S t a t e m e n t 1.3 II.  Justification  2.2  Assessment Students  of the Study  9  2.2.2 2.3  10  o f E n g l 1sh-As-A-Second-Language  (ESL) 10  S e c o n d Language 2.2.1  IV.  6  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1  III.  of the Problem  Acquisition  16  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 ( B I C S ) a n d 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) I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f CALP a c r o s s  Present  16  Languages...22  Study  31  METHODOLOGY  35  3.1  Subjects  35  3.2  Materials  36  3.3  Procedures  41  3.4  Statistical  Analyses  44  RESULTS 4.1  46  Descriptive  Statistics Information  46  4.1.1  Demographic  4.1.2  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r 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  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e 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 Scale: Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: F E ) -  iv -  46  51  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 a n d SB: FE Summary S c o r e s  52  4.1.5 P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (WLPB)  54  4.2 P e a r s o n 4.2.1  Matrices  55  C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s  55  4.2.2 C o r r e l a t i o n s between S u b t e s t S c o r e s  60  4.2.3 C o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e SB: FE S u b t e s t and WLPB Summary S c o r e s  62  4.2.4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f S u b t e s t a n d Summary Scores  63  4.2.5 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f A l l t h e P r e d i c t i v e Variables  68  4.3 S t e p w i s e 4.3.1  V.  Correlation  Multiple  Regression Analyses  68  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 on t h e HK-WISC S c a l e S c o r e s  70  4.3.2 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 on t h e SB:FE Summary S c o r e s  72  4.3.3 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 on t h e WLPB Standard Scores  86  4.4 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e (ANOVA)  90  DISCUSSION  93  5.1 D i s c u s s i o n o f H y p o t h e s i s One  93  5.2 D i s c u s s i o n o f H y p o t h e s i s Two  96  5.3 D i s c u s s i o n o f H y p o t h e s i s T h r e e  98  5.4 D i s c u s s i o n o f O t h e r 5.4.1  Significant  Findings  Test Observations  5.4.2 O t h e r  Significant  100 100  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 o f t h e P r e s e n t S t u d y  103  5.6 Recommendations  105  f o r Future Research  - v -  5.7 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A s s e s s m e n t o f E n g l i s h - A s - A S e c o n d - L a n g u a g e <ESL> C h i l d r e n  106  5.8 Summary o f D i s c u s s i o n  107  REFERENCES  108  APPENDIX A: L e t t e r  of P e r m i s s i o n  APPENDIX B: B a c k g r o u n d  115  Information  121  APPENDIX C: I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC S u b t e s t Scores  126  APPENDIX D: I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t Scores  127  APPENDIX E : I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f A l l t h e P r e d i c t i v e Variables  128  APPENDIX F: L i s t  130  of A b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r Appendix  E  APPENDIX G: R e s u l t s o f A l l t h 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 e s f o r S u b j e c t s ' ' P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e HK-WISC, SB: F E , a n d WLPB  -  vi  -  131  L I S T OF TABLES Table  1: Means a n d S t a n d a r d Dei v a t i o n s o f Some o f t h e Predictive Variables  47  Table  2: P a r e n t s '  48  Table  3: P a r e n t s ' O c c u p a t i o n s  48  Table  4: Means a n d S t a n d a r d Scores  D e v i a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC 50  5: Means a n d S t a n d a r d Scores  D e v i a t i o n s o f t h e SB: F E  Table Table  Highest  Educational Attainments  51  6: S u b j e c t s ' D i f f e r e n c e s Summary  on t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E  Scores  53  Table  7: C o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC Summary  Table  8: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s 9: C o r r e l a t i o n s between  Table  Scores  t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E 56 t h e HK-WISC a n d WLPB  Summary S c o r e s  57  Table  10: C o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e SB: F E Summary  Table  11: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary  Scores  Scores  58  12: C o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e WLPB Summary S c o r e s  Tabel  13: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Subtests 14: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s 15: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s  Table Table Table  57  t h e SB: F E a n d WLPB  Table  Table  56  60  t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E 61 a n d WLPB 63 t h e HK-WISC S u b t e s t a n d 64  t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t  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 o f t h e HK-WISC Subtest Scores  65  17: C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s  66  t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t a n d  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 o f t h e SB: F E Subtest Scores .....67  Table  19: R S q u a r e s o f A l l t h e P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s a n d HK-WISC S c a l e S c o r e s - v i i -  71  T a b l e 20: 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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h AOA, LOR, a n d Gender...72 Table Table  Table  Table  21: R Squares o f A l l t h e 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: F E Summary S c o r e s  73  22: 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 Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Gender a n d Age o f C h i l d (AOC)  75  23: 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 (ME), a n d M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO)  76  24: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR, M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME), 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)  76  Table  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 (ME), 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) 77  Table  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 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 w i t h LOR, M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO), 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)  78  Table  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 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 O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO), 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)..78  Table  28: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR, S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) 79  Table  29: 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, S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB), and Frequency of S p e a k i n g C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) 79  Table  30: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME), M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) 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)..80  -  vl1i -  Table  31: 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 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 M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME), M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) 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) 80  Table  32: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME), S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) , 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)..81  Table  33: 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 M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME), S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e (SEB), and Frequency of Speaking Cantonese a t Home (FSCH) 81  Table  34: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA, LOR, a n d M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME)  83  Table  35: 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 AOA, LOR, a n d M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME) 83  Table  36: 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 S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA, LOR, a n d F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Hong Kong (FHKO)  84  37: 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 S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA, LOR, a n d F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (FCO)  85  Table  Table  38: 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA, LOR, 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 ( F S C H ) . . 8 5  Table  39: R Squares of A l l t h e P r e d i c t i v e S u b j e c t s ' WLPB S t a n d a r d S c o r e s  Table Table  Table  V a r i a b l e s and 87  40: 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 ' R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d LOR  88  41: 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 ' B r o a d Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d LOR  88  42: 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 ' O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB  89  -  ix -  Table  Table Table  43:  44: 45:  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 ' O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA and SEB  90  S u b j e c t s ' Performance with Education  91  Regard to Mother's  S u b j e c t s ' SB Bead Memory S u b t e s t S c o r e s Regard to F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n (Canada)  -  x  -  with 92  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Julianne this  w r i t e r would Conry  for  to express appreciation  for her supervision  t h e s i s , t o Dr. Robert  statistical in  like  analyses,  Conry  being  my f o u r t h  Appreciation their  parents,  i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of  for his assistance  t o Dr. A l i s t e r  the review of the l i t e r a t u r e ,  t o Dr.  i n the  Cumming f o r h i s a d v i c e  and t o Dr. David  Whittaker  reader.  i s a l s o extended t o a l l the c h i l d r e n ,  and t h e i r  schools  f o r making t h i s  study  possible. Finally,  Mr. Esmond T s a o  i sgratefully  acknowledged f o r  his  assistance  i n the t r a n s l a t i o n of the Parent  and  Background  Information  Forms.  -  xl -  Permission  1 CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION The  p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e  differences  i n performance of Chinese  m e a s u r e s t h a t were g i v e n  in their  (Cantonese  With  or English).  of these  1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE During dramatic native  the past  F o r example,  language  of these  i n a p p r o p r i a t e l a b e l l i n g and  c h i l d r e n may be e l i m i n a t e d .  PROBLEM 15 y e a r s  i n Canada, t h e r e h a s been a  i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f immigrant  language  s t u d e n t s on  n a t i v e or second  a better estimate  c h i l d r e n ' s academic p o t e n t i a l , misplacement  immigrant  the  ( L I ) i s other  the B r i t i s h  than  s t u d e n t s , whose  that of the school ( L 2 ) .  Columbia M i n i s t r y  of Education  (1986) r e p o r t e d t h a t o n l y 6 d i s t r i c t s h a d no English-as-a-second-language had  (ESL) students, while  63.2% o f a l l ESL s t u d e n t s Assessment  process  f o r special  education  i s from  a culturally  E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g background. always e s s e n t i a l critical  i n the p r o v i n c e .  and i s made even more s o when  individual  Limited English-proficient students are at higher r i s k  i s a complicated the r e f e r r e d  diverse or  While  i n assessment,  when a c u l t u r a l l y  Vancouver  limited  accuracy  these  and c a r e a r e  f a c t o r s a r e even more  d i v e r s e student  i s the f o c u s .  (LEP) and c u l t u r a l l y f o r premature  diverse  labelling,  2  misclasslfIcation, 1984).  Thus,  conducted  the assessment  with  According placement of  given  students  i n the grade  i susually  (1980),  1987). initial  i s u s u a l l y made on t h e b a s i s  r e c o r d s , an i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e t o the s c h o o l .  level  experiences  (Cummins,  s t u d e n t s must be  & Barona,  t o Samuda a n d C r a w f o r d  of the student's  When a s t u d e n t assessment  of these (Barona  a n d an o r i e n t a t i o n  are p l a c e d  During  extreme c a r e  o f immigrant  a review  student,  and i n a p p r o p r i a t e placement  Most  students  a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r age.  academic d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  initiated  an  by t h e t e a c h e r o r p a r e n t .  the assessment p e r i o d , t e s t s  t h a t a r e most f r e q u e n t l y  t o ESL s t u d e n t s a r e t e a c h e r - m a d e t e s t s a n d t h e  Wechsler  Intelligence  (Wechsler,  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)  1974) (Samuda & C r a w f o r d ,  Within  about  c o u n t r y , most  1980).  1 1/2-2 y e a r s o f a r r i v a l  immigrant  i n the host  s t u d e n t s have a c q u i r e d  relatively  fluent  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  skills  i n the L2.  communicative  difficulties  p s y c h o l o g i s t s tend sufficient  appear  t o c o n s i d e r that these  and e d u c a t i o n a l  assume t h a t t h e s e IQ t e s t  face-to-face  t o have overcome  i n t h e L 2 , most  English proficiency  psychological  verbal  When t h e y  children  by t h e i r  t e a c h e r s and students  have  t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d tests.  Psychologists often  a r e no l o n g e r h a n d i c a p p e d  ESL b a c k g r o u n d b e c a u s e  communicative  obvious  on a  t h e i r L2  s k i l l s appear adequate.  It  is  3  assumed t h a t  the  language p r o f i c i e n c y  face-to-face  communication  cognitive/academic directly verbal  as f o r performance  task.  T h i s assumption  t o the c o n c l u s i o n  IQ t e s t  abilities  i s a function  tendency of p s y c h o l o g i s t s  students  that  (Cummins & Swain,  inferences  t e a c h e r s have no  and  1986).  fluency  information  s t u d e n t s to approach cognitive/academic  o f many  on how  long  at  arrive least  invalid immigrant  It takes  (Cummins,  5 y e a r s , on  immigrant  t h e age  are  immigrant  oral  5-7  language  a s p e c t s of Failure  child  years to acquire  speaker.  c h i l d r e n ' s academic  may  in their  the  need  t o be  t h e s e two  lead  potential.  L2  and  language s k i l l s  Thus, c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  into account  language p r o f i c i e n c y  According to  s u c c e s s comparable  language p r o f i c i e n c y  to take  of s i x r e q u i r e  takes approximately 2  language s k i l l s  n e c e s s a r y f o r academic  native  children  t h e a v e r a g e , t o a p p r o a c h g r a d e norms i n  L2 c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y .  approximately  immigrant  1984).  i n the host c o u n t r y a f t e r  years to acquire  and  g r a d e norms i n E n g l i s h  skills  Cummins ( 1 9 8 4 ) , an  L2  t o the  psychologists  Cummins ( 1 9 8 1 ) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t who  on an  cognitive  Contributing  that  L2  leads  poor performance  of d e f i c i e n t  the f a c t  on an  often  t o make l o g i c a l l y  i s the apparent  in English  i s t h e same f o r L2  to that and  of a  academic  distinguished.  dimensions of  t o an u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n o f These  that  children's  poor  4 p e r f o r m a n c e on p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s e s s m e n t Insufficient  time  to attain  English proficiency. conversational  contextual  Immigrant  support  academic s e t t i n g s .  s t u d e n t s a c q u i r e L2  i s available  than  age-appropriate  L2  that greater  f o r communicating and  ln conversational settings Thus,  to r e f l e c t  l e v e l s of  t h i s may be due t o t h e f a c t  r e c e i v i n g meaning  required  age-appropriate  s k i l l s more r a p i d l y  academic s k i l l s ;  i s likely  than i n  l e s s knowledge o f t h e L2 i s  to function appropriately in conversational  settings. Collier of The  second  (1987) a l s o c o n d u c t e d  language a c q u i s i t i o n  results  indicated  a study  (SLA) f o r academic  all  to reach  the 50th  the subject areas  achievers,  percentile  tested.  of t h e i r  8-11, when b o t h (LOR).  years  LEP p e e r s who e n t e r e d g r o u p s h a d t h e same  the performance  the program a t ages length of r e s i d e n c e the g r e a t e s t  a n d were p r o j e c t e d t o r e q u i r e a s much a s 6-8  to reach  g r a d e - l e v e l norms i n a c a d e m i c  when s c h o o l e d a l l In t h e L 2 . s t u d e n t s may r e a c h p r o f i c i e n c y as 2 y e a r s ,  norms l n  LEP s t u d e n t s who e n t e r e d t h e  A r r i v a l s a t a g e s 12-15 e x p e r i e n c e d  difficulty  t h e ESL  requiring  on n a t i o n a l  p r o g r a m a t a g e s 5-7 were 1-3 y e a r s b e h i n d level  purposes.  t h a t LEP s t u d e n t s who e n t e r e d  p r o g r a m a t a g e s 8-11 were t h e f a s t e s t 2-5 y e a r s  on age a n d r a t e  achievement  Whereas some g r o u p s o f LEP i n some s u b j e c t s i n a s  i t i s projected that at least  little  4-8 y e a r s may be  5 required  f o r a l l a g e s of LEP  norms o f n a t i v e s p e a k e r s and  students  to reach grade-level  In a l l s u b j e c t a r e a s o f  a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t , a s m e a s u r e d on  standardized  A number o f s t u d i e s ( e . g . , Cummins, S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s & Toukomaa, 1976;  Ekstrand,  1978)  the  i s s u e t h a t the c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c  LI  are  interdependent.  L2  proficiency  i n L2  proficiency  at the  begun.  Appel  (1979),  Hoefnagel-Hohle older well  t i m e when  as  a f u n c t i o n of  (1977),  f i n d i n g s are directly  conventional less clear  related  o f L2 s y n t a x  tests.  on m e a s u r e s o f  According Association and  Hoyt  these  (1985),  as  However,  the  proficiency such  as  oral For  advantage f o r younger  On  and  t h e o t h e r h a n d , Snow  that older learners  and  performed  skills.  P s y c h o l o g i s t s , 1984)  t e s t s and  is  skills  t o t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t Manual  of School  LI  advantage f o r  p r o d u c t i v e phonology  Hoefnage1-Hoh1e ( 1 9 7 8 ) f o u n d better  skills,  of  and  l i s t e n i n g communication.  both  l i s t e n i n g comprehension  t o L2  and m o r p h o l o g y  i n a s p e c t s of L2  of  of  level  Snow  standardized tests.  example, Oyama ( 1 9 7 8 ) r e p o r t s an l e a r n e r s on  the  t y p e s o f L2  to communicative  f l u e n c y , p h o n o l o g y , and  immigrant  and  ( 1 9 7 8 ) have shown a c l e a r  i n the c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c  m e a s u r e d by  aspects  I n t e n s i v e exposure  Ekstrand  l e a r n e r s In m a s t e r y  have  A l s o , the development  is partially  tests.  1979;  supported and  language  other  and  (National  Hartshorne  evaluation materials should  6 be  provided  of  communication, u n l e s s  so.  and  Willig  administered  (1986) has  d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an educational strongest apparent  i n the  disability disability.  Any  manifestations  1.2  present  extent  does  length  of  procedures American  THE  to  that  in order  to  does  study  tested  If there  dominant  have  students'  (LOR)  The  use  and  development of  these  an  must  be  can  be  i s no  then  no  be  SLA.  age  affect  question, on  their  given  arrival  t o what <AOA) and  performance  in their  have s t i m u l a t e d  i n e v a l u a t i n g them.  One  t r a n s l a t e d v e r s i o n s of  tests,  which are  on  n a t i v e or  problems a s s o c i a t e d with  students  of  standardized  item-analyzed,  of  must  do  in his/her  language, there  a d d r e s s e s the  immigrant  i s the  indeed  mode  PROBLEM  procedures  second  the  a number of  inherent  for  the  versions  level  i s an  in direct  North  normed,  attempt  may  The  to c o r r e c t  t r a n s l a t i o n s of  of d i f f i c u l t y  of  these  factor-analyzed cross-culturally.  difficulties example,  language.  the p r o c e s s  (LI or L2)?  alternative  feasible  c h i l d must be  t e s t s that are  of  not  symptoms o f d i s a b i l i t y  residence  assessment  child  or other  ( L I ) because a true d i s a b i l i t y  immigrant  standardized language  the  child's  of  STATEMENT OF The  a l s o suggested  dominant  i n the  c h i l d ' s LI  lt is clearly  immigrant  handicap,  language  i n the  these  change a s a  the tests;  result  7 of  the  no  equivalents.  and  translation,  and  For  s t a n d a r d i z e d on  there  a r e many c o n c e p t s  example,  t h e WISC-R h a s  various populations,  f r o m Hong Kong, M e x i c o , and  Spain.  applicable  reside  for students  have r e c e n t l y m i g r a t e d  who  t o a new  which  been  adapted  including children  These t e s t s i n those  country  have  are  c o u n t r i e s or  f r o m them  who  CEsquivel,  1985). In t h e p r e s e n t Intelligence  Scale  C a n t o n e s e ) (Yung, Stanford-Binet administered 1 9 8 6 a ) , and  for Children 1981), t h e  Hong Kong.  The  profile  in  the Edition  Hagen, &  and  Chan  other  r a t e s , and  1984)  immigrant  (SB:  FE,  Sattler,  c h i l d r e n from  ( 1 9 8 8 ) have  t e s t s of  visual-spatial  lower v e r b a l  were  suggested  Oriental populations  o f p e r f o r m a n c e on  share  intelligence.  scores,  higher  s c o r e s when compared  with  populations. present  study  that  longer  had  immigrant  p e r f o r m a n c e on  Thus, the  form of  to Cantonese-speaking Lynn, P a g l i a r i ,  hypothesized and  short  Form (WLPB) (Woodcock,  They u s u a l l y d i s p l a y h i g h e r  Caucasian  (HK-WISC, a d m i n i s t e r e d  in English) (Thorndike,  Hong Kong c h i l d r e n and  perceptual  Hong-Kong W e c h s l e r  t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y  administered  a similar  the  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale: Fourth  Battery-English  that  study,  three hypotheses. students'  standardized  the  immigrant  AOA  and  First, LOR  it  was  i n Canada  t e s t s w o u l d be c o r r e l a t e d . c h i l d r e n have  obtained  8 education on  i n Canada ( o r LOR), t h e b e t t e r t h e i r  t h e SB: F E a n d WLPB ( m e a s u r e s o f t h e i r  p r o f i c i e n c y ) should be. hypothesized correlation Chinese  English  On t h e o t h e r hand,  language  i t was  t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t  negative  between LOR a n d s u b j e c t s ' " p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e  IQ m e a s u r e .  immigrated  performance  With  regard  t o AOA, o l d e r  l e a r n e r s (who  t o Canada when t h e y were o l d e r ) were  t o have b e t t e r p e r f o r m a n c e t h a n E n g l i s h measures. significant  On t h e C h i n e s e  positive  performance.  correlation  Secondly,  hypothesized  younger  l e a r n e r s on t h e  m e a s u r e , t h e r e s h o u l d be a between AOA a n d  s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC p e r f o r m a n c e was  t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e SB: F E .  Thus,  p e r f o r m a n c e s h o u l d be p r e d i c t i v e Finally,  hypothesized  positive  correlation  t h e s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC of t h e i r  i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e  SB:  FE.  and  low v e r b a l  SB:  FE.  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 ) w o u l d be  abilities  b e t t e r than  measures (e.g., subtests).  p r o f i l e w o u l d be a p p a r e n t  their  difference  nonverbal  their  areas.  on t h e  measures  (e.g.,  & Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s  S i n c e s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC v e r b a l  between  nonverbal  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e v e r b a l  t h e SB V o c a b u l a r y  p e r f o r m a n c e s h o u l d be s i m i l a r ,  than  that a high  S u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on n o n v e r b a l  significantly  with  and nonverbal  t h e r e w o u l d be a  larger  HK-WISC a n d SB: F E s c o r e s  i n verbal  9  1.3 J U S T I F I C A T I O N OF THE STUDY A s s e s s i n g ESL s t u d e n t s w i t h m e a s u r e s t h a t a r e g i v e n i n their  L I a n d L2 i s l i k e l y  their  academic p o t e n t i a l .  abilities  i n both  misinterpretation there  With  languages, of test  i t i s Important  in order At  t h e knowledge o f t h e i r  the p o t e n t i a l f o r  r e s u l t s may be r e d u c e d .  present,  assessment  knowledge  t o meet  the present  theoretical  study  Implications.  needs.  t h e n e e d s o f immigrant  in this  field  has both  p r o f i c i e n c y and  study  attempted  to  to help  logically  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  summary,  i n f o r m a t i o n on  of psycho-educational  The p r e s e n t  p s y c h o l o g i s t s a n d t e a c h e r s make  children in  educational  v a r y i n g l e v e l s of l i n g u i s t i c  further  Since  knowledge b a s e , a n d  the p r a c t i c e  home-1anguage b a c k g r o u n d s . provide  their  the technology,  a r e inadequate  students with  t o g a t h e r more  to better serve  regulations governing  from  In a b e t t e r e s t i m a t e o f  i s an i n c r e a s i n g number o f immigrant  Vancouver, them  to result  valid  inferences  results.  practical  and  In  10 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE T h i s chapter reviews to the assessment  the r e s e a r c h and t h e o r i e s  of English-as-a-second-language (ESL)  students.  Issues r e g a r d i n g the purposes  assessment  in bilingual  basic  cognitive/academic  language  present  skills  proficiency  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of ( B I C S ) and  (CALP),  o f CALP a c r o s s l a n g u a g e s ,  intelligence profile addressed.  and p r o c e d u r e s of  a n d ESL s e t t i n g s ,  I n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative  interdependence  relating  of O r i e n t a l  In a d d i t i o n ,  populations are a l l being  the purpose  study a r e r e s t a t e d  and the  and hypotheses  to specify  of the  the s i g n i f i c a n c e of  t h i s study with regard to the l i t e r a t u r e . 2.1 ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE ( E S L ) STUDENTS Assessment  i s used  f o r many d i f f e r e n t  bilingual  a n d ESL s e t t i n g s ,  exit  a p r o g r a m , and e v a l u a t i o n  from  Collier,  1985).  the assessment challenging,  Attempting  i n c l u d i n g placement, of a program  to understand  diagnosis, (Ovando &  a l l the issues i n  of language-minority s t u d e n t s i s  c o m p l i c a t e d , and sometimes v e r y c o n f u s i n g .  While  we c a n e a s i l y  their  abilities  agree  that  these c h i l d r e n  and s t y l e s of l e a r n i n g ,  t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s may be r e l a t e d factors,  purposes i n  and t h a t  to cultural  i t i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r when s u c h  t o be c o n s i d e r e d d i s a b i l i t i e s  d i f f e r in some o f  or s o c i a l  differences  o r impairments  need  (Maclntyre,  11 1985).  A c c o r d i n g t o Samuda and C r a w f o r d ' s  34 s c h o o l  boards  most d i f f i c u l t immigrant of  i n T o r o n t o , assessment  part  of the school  students.  identifying  Respondents  of  i s p e r c e i v e d as  placement  difficulty  one  of  had  language  or  learning. In  i n t e r p r e t i n g assessment  linguistically  different  child,  d a t a f o r the c u l t u r a l l y many p s y c h o l o g i s t s  d i a g n o s t i c i a n s do not seem t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e of  the  o f f u n c t i o n i n g and  t h e p r o b l e m was  the  process for  commented on  the s t u d e n t ' s l e v e l  t r o u b l e d e c i d i n g whether  (1980) s u r v e y o f  the second  language a c q u i s i t i o n  o v e r l a p w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d e f i c i e n c i e s among n a t i v e Smith 1984)  1981;  Wright  backgrounds variety  i n one  of problems  characteristics  & Santa C r u z , 1983).  Canadian  school  Cummins'  forms  children  (Shephard  from  district  language c h i l d r e n .  English,  r e g a r d l e s s of  he/she  exposes  t o p o s s e s s t h e same s k i l l s  and  background  as a n a t i v e  language.  the c h i l d native a s one.  i s considered proficient  s p e a k e r s i n academic  enough  a r e a s and  may  of speaks  linguistic That i s ,  t o compete w i t h  i s expected to perform  Consequently, data i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  assignment  a  i s usually  considered  speaker of the  (1980,  ESL  If a non-native c h i l d  i t s quality,  &  and  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the assessment  minority  their  language d i s o r d e r s or  speakers of E n g l i s h  a s s e s s m e n t s o f 428  and  ( S L A ) p r o c e s s and  a n a l y s e s of the t e a c h e r r e f e r r a l  psychological  and  and  program  be b a s e d upon a m i s c o n c e p t i o n w h i c h  has  the  12 potential,  e v e n t u a l l y , to  m e a s u r e d by  limit  the academic  standardized tests.  Cummins (1984) shows t h a t  many s t u d e n t s manage t o r a p i d l y s t r u c t u r e s o f E n g l i s h and linguistic  abilities  context-reduced In t e x t b o o k s these  other  students begin  a referral  instructional  education  l a c k of E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y of  the problem because  difficulty peers.  appears  actually  academic  language p r o f i c i e n c y a f f o r d e d them. f o r such  Procedures and  approaches ( E s q u i v e l ,  information,  parent  students  1985).  teachers  or  students often skills  in  to obtain  is  the p o s s i b i l i t y  the is  of  exacerbated.  limited-English-proficient  Informal  child  between  of  background  interviews.  teachers working with  a s a means o f p r o b l e m c l a r i f i c a t i o n .  formal  approaches include  interviews, collection  relationship  no  i n v o l v e i n f o r m a l and  o b s e r v a t i o n s , and  Consultation with  collaborative  t o have  r e q u i r e d f o r s c h o o l i n g than  a result,  students  Often,  as a p o s s i b l e cause  n e e d more t i m e  for evaluating  bilingual  consultation,  As  However, i f  to f o l l o w .  i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative  t h e y may  found  difficulties,  or communicating with  but  failure  t e a c h e r s and  materials.  out  the  complex  achievement  is ruled  English,  (LEP)  by  Cummins (1984) shows t h a t s u c h  usually  the  is likely  the c h i l d  understanding  demonstrate good  school  i s used  to experience  to s p e c i a l  surface  a s s e s s o r s as h a v i n g  to handle  language which  and  a c q u i r e the  impress  necessary  learning  t h e c h i l d may  Through  serve  a  t e a c h e r s and  the  school  13 psychologist, difficulties the of  the actual  s o u r c e and n a t u r e of the c h i l d ' s  are hopefully  identified.  assessment p r o c e s s f u r t h e r  facilitates  s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l v a l u e s w h i c h may  school  extent  pattern  residence  of exposure  of m o b i l i t y ,  important  t o formal  the understanding  affect  the c h i l d ' s  learning  age on a r r i v a l  <LOR) i n t h e c o u n t r y  academic achievement  a n d SLA.  Observational  experiences,  <AOA), a n d l e n g t h  a r e v a r i a b l e s which Consideration  factors provide s i g n i f i c a n t  Information.  classroom useful.  However,  sociometric  the  experience.  the context  shed  to learn  light  children  about  t h o s e c h i l d r e n who Formal tests,  test  versions. that  on t h e i r r e a s o n i n g  activities are less  approaches  are useful  include  t r a n s l a t i o n s , and The r a t i o n a l e  only  i s one o f verbal  ability, The u s e o f  diagnostic  tools for  verbal. non-verbal  tests,  verbal  standardized-translated  f o r the use of non-verbal  LEP a n d b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n  better  are  them, s i n c e  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 . d r a w i n g s and p l a y  reports  of the c h i l d ' s unique  Communicating w i t h  most s i g n i f i c a n t ways  i n t e r a c t i o n may  and a n e c d o t a l  procedures,  these o b s e r v a t i o n s are meaningful  interpreted within  cultural  influence  diagnostic  t e c h n i q u e s such as  interaction scales,  of  of these  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  when  parents in  adjustment.  The the  Involving  usually  tests i s  do s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n t e s t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e where t h e u s e o f l a n g u a g e i s  14  limited  and the i n f l u e n c e  standardized  verbal  language-minority as  English  reduced.  i s applicable  The u s e o f  primarily for  c h i l d r e n who have been p r o p e r l y Nevertheless,  in light  of the c h i l d ' s  sociocultural Since  scales  dominant.  interpreted and  of c u l t u r e  factors  findings level  (Valencia,  need t o be  of a c c u l t u r a t i o n  1983).  the degree of b i l i n g u a l i s m  t h e y may mix l a n g u a g e s o r a l t e r n a t e  identified  varies  between  in children, two l a n g u a g e  systems  i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g and r e s p o n d i n g t o q u e s t i o n s .  ability  t o express themselves  on  in either  l a n g u a g e may  the nature of the task or the context  learned  the s p e c i f i c  skill  required.  e x a m i n e r may have t o s w i t c h and  to translate Direct  that  they  specific  of d i f f i c u l t y  Items o r i n s t r u c t i o n s . inherent  technically equivalent  flaws in  forms.  may change a s a r e s u l t o f t h e  t h e r e a r e many c o n c e p t s w h i c h have no  equivalents,  and the t e s t c o n t e n t  which  The d e v e l o p m e n t  remains  culture-bound  of t r a n s l a t e d  a r e i t e m - a n a l y z e d and f a c t o r - a n a l y z e d  i s another  a p p r o a c h w h i c h h a s been a t t e m p t e d  correcting  for difficulties  translations. for  F o r example,  Children-Revised  For  counterparts, the  translation,  (Olmedo, 1 9 8 1 ) .  they  f r o m one l a n g u a g e t o t h e o t h e r  example, some w o r d s do n o t have e x a c t level  which  depend  Consequently, the  t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t e s t s have  do n o t y i e l d  within  Their  inherent  cross-culturally a s a means o f  in direct  the Wechsler  (WISC-R) ( W e c h s l e r ,  versions  test  Intelligence  Scale  1974) h a s 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 i n g u i s t i c a l l y / c u l t u r a l l y different children are to be assessed for the purpose of distinguishing disorders or d i s a b 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 s a b i l i t y ; (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 i s being evaluated; (4) records of any previous intervention in which the c h i l d was involved; and (5) the c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c preference by setting ( e . g . , classroom, home, & play area).  The consideration of complete language data  guides appropriate assessment, f a c i l i t a t e s and is essential deficiencies  interpretation,  for making the d i s t i n c t i o n between  caused by functioning in a second language (L2)  and true disorders which would be evident language ( L I ) .  in the native  16  2.2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION With  r e g a r d t o SLA,  Collier  f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s n e e d t o be it  take  acquire level  t o m a s t e r an that  academically the  level  L2  i n an  addressed:  ( 4 ) How  L2  ( 1 ) How  p e r f o r m a n c e by  t h e above q u e s t i o n s , one  has  Is i t e a s i e r  i t take  Before  one  to understand  cognitive/academic  in a l l  t o answer  skills  language p r o f i c i e n c y  (CALP),  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)  language p r o f i c i e n c y three d i s t i n c t (2) m o d a l i t y , linguistic  and  the o r a l  written  channel.  dimensions  linguistic  and  r e a d i n g and  Sociolinguistic function,  variety,  H e r n a n d e z - C h a v e z e t a l . ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) model dimensional  matrix  r e p r e s e n t i n g 64  and  writing  performance and  that with  The  semantics, production through  the  i n v o l v e s the  domain.  gives rise  separate  and  components,  performance.  i n v o l v e s comprehension  channel  of s t y l e ,  (1978) argue  i n c l u d e phonology, syntax,  Modality  through  (1) the  (3) s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c  components  lexicon.  Dulay  involves multiple factors along  parameters:  and  languages.  H e r n a n d e z - C h a v e z , B u r t , and  and  reach  t h e m e a n i n g of  (BICS),  o f CALP a c r o s s  to  attempts  l i k e b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative  2.2.1  to  succeed  native speakers  factors  interdependence  long does  i s needed t o  long does  a c a d e m i c s u b j e c t s l n t h e L2?  the  i s y o u n g e r o r o l d e r ? ( 3 ) What  i n t h e LI and  L2?  of average  (1987) s u g g e s t s  f o r s c h o o l i n g ? (2)  l a n g u a g e when one  of p r o f i c i e n c y  (SLA)  Thus,  to a  three  proficiencies.  17 Hypothetical1y,  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 theoretically claims  that  be  questionable.  a wide v a r i e t y  of  (1978.) a r g u e s t h a t  i t i s about  reading, allow  for  and the  proficiency, specific  the  existence  equally  writing  well  tasks.  possibility t h e r e may  can  be  both  of  and  be  language  1979)  of  proficiency  which  skills  of  Oiler  dimension  is defined  as  to  the  and  is strongly to  claims  global  1979)  to  ignore which  t o be  of reducible  ( C a n a l e & Swain,  those a s p e c t s of  language language  to  1979).  suggested  language p r o f i c i e n c y global  related  academic  t h e s e r e a s o n s , Cummins (1980) has  O i l e r ' s (1978,  and  (1979) does  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c aspects  term c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c  place  IQ  l i s t e n i n g , reading,  competence a p p e a r u n l i k e l y  CALP  the  he  language p r o f i c i e n c y  t e s t s and  cognitive  to  a r g u m e n t s seem t o  communicative  the  related  skills.  Also,  For  Oiler  In a d d i t i o n  achievement.  a global  measures.  unique v a r i a n c e s a t t r i b u t a b l e  a variety  writing  to general  variance  listening,  Nonetheless,  that,  (1978)  Also,  m e a s u r e d by  even  reliable  i s strongly  a d i m e n s i o n of  a s s e s s e d by  the  and  proficiency  academic achievement.  components o f  the  language  language p r o f i c i e n c y  However, O i l e r ' s (1978,  speaking,  example, O i l e r  b u l k of  this factor  t o o t h e r a s p e c t s of that  For  there e x i s t s a global  f a c t o r which accounts f o r in  p r a c t i c a l l y impossible  using  (CALP) i n  proficiency. proficiency  18  which  are c l o s e l y  skills  related  t o the development  i n a p e r s o n ' s LI and L2.  to as c o n t e x t - r e d u c e d o r a l primarily the  on  linguistic  language s k i l l s  setting.  This  in a b s t r a c t with  skills  i n an  fluently  in face-to-face  referred  t o as  face-to-face  language.  interpersonal  BICS can  for  to  speak  be  context-embedded,  where m e a n i n g can be  negotiated  w i t h a wide r a n g e o f p a r a l i n g u i s t i c  and  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  t h o s e between BICS and CALP. has noted that  F o r example,  t h e Words i n S e n t e n c e s s u b t e s t  c o n s c i o u s awareness  l a n g u a g e and grammar q u i t e  from the t a c i t  knowledge o r competence  s p e a k e r s have o f t h e i r  language.  1959)  that  longitudinal  study of p r e s c h o o l  development  among E n g l i s h - d o m i n a n t c h i l d r e n , a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p  c h i l d r e n ' s performance  on  language  (1978)  involves a different  a l l native  S i m i l a r l y , W e l l s (1979), a  large-scale  i s only  to  o f t h e Modern  (Carroll  of  & Sapon,  similar  Krashen  Language A p t i t u d e T e s t  there  tasks  Contrasted  the a b i l i t y  conversations.  communication  i s enhanced  situational  to r e f l e c t  language p r o f i c i e n c y  academic  i n c l u d e s academic  formal w r i t t e n  rely  CALP c o n s i s t s o f  necessary to function  (BICS)  referred  languages, which  CALP, Cummins ( 1 9 8 0 ) u s e s t h e t e r m b a s i c  communicative  and  and w r i t t e n  cues f o r meaning.  and  literacy  CALP can a l s o be  language p r o f i c i e n c y  thought  of  language found  that  between m e a s u r e s o f 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 d e v e l o p m e n t a l m e a s u r e s o f  oral  19  language a b i l i t y  d e r i v e d from  spontaneous speech.  (1979) a l s o r e p o r t s t h a t m e a s u r e s of o r a l derived weakly  from  spontaneous speech  related  to attainment  on  entry  Wells  language  ability  to school  i n r e a d i n g a t age  were o n l y  7.  H e r n a n d e z - C h a v e z e t a l . ( 1 9 7 8 ) 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 c o m m u n i c a t i o n manipulation to  tasks.  quite different  t a s k s and  They s u g g e s t results  Although  readily  linguistic  oral  a s s e s s e d by  or w r i t t e n c l o z e ) ,  cannot  a l s o be  tasks.  that these  i n t e r m s of  language p r o d u c e d .  linguistic  manipulation be  are r e l a t e d  to r e a d i n g but  of  lead the  t o be  more  tasks  (e.g.,  assumed t h a t i t  a s s e s s e d by means o f n a t u r a l  S t u d i e s have shown t h a t c e r t a i n  discourse  tasks  the q u a l i t y  CALP i s l i k e l y  i t s h o u l d not  two  communication  a s p e c t s of  oral  o t h e r s a r e not  (Fry,  1967). If  the purpose of  assign bilingual language  children  i n which  essential  language p r o f i c i e n c y  they  to c l a s s e s taught  a r e most c a p a b l e  t h a t t h e s e m e a s u r e s a s s e s s CALP.  communication  t a s k s do  not  linguistically  distinction  consistent (1976). Finnish  different  with  the  learning, Thus,  i s to  the it is  i f natural  relevance  children  to  under  conditions i s questionable.  between CALP and  BICS i s a l s o  f i n d i n g s of S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s and  In t h i s s t u d y , immigrant  through  a s s e s s CALP, t h e i r  the e d u c a t i o n a l performance of b i l i n g u a l  The  of  assessment  parents  children  and  Toukomaa  t e a c h e r s of grades  i n Sweden were a s k e d  to judge  3-6 the  20 l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y of  these c h i l d r e n .  indicated  that  change o f  l a n g u a g e dominance t o o c c u r .  p a r e n t s and Swedish  surface  quite  fluency  was  Swedish  t o be not  on  the  LOR  Education  LI  and  absolute  survey  i s r e l a t e d t o the  7,  and  language.  The  Vocabulary  Test  Wright,  L2,  the  Canada a f t e r t h e  i t d i d not  this  LI  strengths  supply  and  L2  1,210  proficiency.  1974)  shows  and  a six-part the  I t was age  from the t e s t of  B o a r d f o r the  a  found that  of  However, AOA  second Picture  language  (Ramsey  s t u d e n t s who  was  not  English  &  arrived  s i x performed p r o g r e s s i v e l y  measures of  in  Picture  English survey  and  students  as  Ammons  how  students  Ramsey  immigrant  learning English  derived  Toronto  Immigrant  proficiency.  of  enough  d a t a from a  (Ramsey & W r i g h t ,  were  (PVT)  be l o w - g r a d e norms on increased.  required  cognitive/academic  relative  l e v e l s of  involved  9 who  d e v e l o p e d by 1974).  children's  showed t h a t  l a n g u a g e t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d were a  Vocabulary Test skills  these  immigrant  r a p i d i t y w i t h which  (1974) s t u d y  g r a d e s 5,  a  Toukomaa's ( 1 9 7 6 ) s t u d y  a p p r o a c h g r a d e norms i n E n g l i s h Wright's  Although  for  i n Swedish which  However, Cummins' ( 1 9 8 1 ) r e a n a l y s i s o f Board of  average,  r e f l e c t e d i n the  Judgments on  children's  information  results  proficiency.  subjective  immigrant  the  c a r r i e d out  S i n c e S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s and involved  on  Finnish  fluent, tests  operations  a s p e c t s of  years,  teachers considered  t o be  cognitive  i t took 4-5  The  further  p r o f i c i e n c y as  distinguished  in  f r o m LOR  AOA in  21  the o r i g i n a l designed The  age  on  6 or  of  later  S t u d e n t s who  fluent  develop  that  to approach that  L2 c o n c e p t u a l  i t takes  arrived  5-7  i n Canada a t  years  13 a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y  norms. grade  However,  norms o v e r children  in their  and  factors.  i n Canada f o r 3  immigrant  surface s k i l l s  two  was  norms i n E n g l i s h  have been  below grade  Cummins ( 1 9 8 1 ) a r g u e s  they  grade  a r r i v e d between a g e s 8 and  students continue  these  f o r s t u d e n t s who  to approach  standard deviation  acquire  of  the r e a n a l y s i s suggest  the average,  vocabulary. and who  Cummins' (1981) r e a n a l y s i s  t o d i s e n t a n g l e the e f f e c t s  results  years,  analysis.  these time.  tend  to  L2 more r a p i d l y  literacy  1  skills.  than  In g e n e r a l ,  BICS d e v e l o p s w i t h i n 2 y e a r s o f e x p o s u r e  t o t h e new  culture.  On  average  5-7  t h e o t h e r hand, CALP u s u a l l y  years f o r language-minority Failure developmental assessment immigrant  by  p r o c e s s and  i n s t r u m e n t s can  there are  their  Maldonado-Colon  of  i n an of  L2.  this  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  result  Although  1974;  the c h i l d r e n  English,  the  in i n c o r r e c t  s t u d e n t s ' academic d i f f i c u l t i e s  Ramsey & W r i g h t ,  Since  s t u d e n t s to master  p s y c h o l o g i s t s t o take account  academic placement.  findings,  t a k e s an  diagnoses  of  and i n a p p r o p r i a t e  t h e above s t u d i e s ( e . g . ,  Cummins, 1981)  limitations  provide  to t h e i r  useful  generalizations.  i n t h e s e s t u d i e s were o n l y a s s e s s e d i n  proficiency  in t h e i r  (1986) mentioned,  a child's proficiency  LI was  unknown.  i t is essential  i n h i s / h e r LI  in order  As  t o measure  t o make  the  22 distinction L2  and  2.2.2  between d e f i c i e n c i e s  caused  t r u e d i s o r d e r s w h i c h w o u l d be Interdependence  It  i s widely  by  f u n c t i o n i n g i n an  evident  o f CALP a c r o s s  i n the  Languages  b e l i e v e d t h a t young c h i l d r e n  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 o f an  L2.  are  the  Language  r e s e a r c h e r s d i s p u t e t h i s common a s s u m p t i o n  but  debate  However,  the o p t i m a l  age  f o r b e g i n n i n g SLA.  i n c r e a s i n g research evidence cannot  be  separated  cognitive  from  development  continue  I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e age  another  and  LI.  key  variable  proficiency  in  i n t h e LI  to  question  SLA: (Collier,  1989). First easy  process;  1984; age  language a c q u i s i t i o n  de  5,  i t t a k e s a minimum o f  Villiers  children  vocabulary, process school  i s not  develop  a l l c o m p l e t e by  t h e complex  of  m o r p h o l o g y and  skills  and  time  children  syntax,  From b i r t h  lifetime),  but  children still  semantic  have  continues  i n the  d e v e l o p m e n t , and  Villiers  1978).  school  For  speech  even some  (McLaughlin,  LI.  rules  throughout  development  Villiers,  to  of more complex  a s p e c t s of p h o n o l o g i c a l & de  the  reach  there are e l a b o r a t i o n of (which  through  phonology,  o f r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g  of v o c a b u l a r y  and  (McLaughlin,  pragmatics,  to continuing a c q u i s i t i o n  expansion  a quick  12 y e a r s  1978).  the  From a g e s 6 t o 12,  addition  person's  Villiers,  i s not  a c q u i r e enormous amounts o f LI  In  acts,  & de  grammar, s e m a n t i c s ,  age.  (FLA)  1984;  purposes,  de  a  23 language a c q u i s i t i o n a l s o special  u s e s of  includes  the  vocabulary  language f o r each s u b j e c t  metalinguistic  analysis  of  and  learning  strategies associated  of  many o t h e r language  Heath,  language  i n each c o n t e n t  area  research  development has of  L2  of  continuing  has  found that  LI  One  language a r t s with  cognitive  lead  subtractive  to  lower p r o f i c i e n c y  or  cognitive  a  the  classes  the  use 1987;  e f f e c t s are  associated.  cognitive  (Cummins 1981,  Skutnabb-Kangas, When t h e acquisition  during  an  L2  conclusively  the  the  variable  a r g u m e n t s can  (Cummins,  m a t t e r when one  may  (1984) r e f e r s  o t h e r hand,  L2 to  and this  Cummins  lower t h r e s h o l d  Several  level  in  negative research  or  reviews  some  limited  Dulay & Burt,  optimal  for schooling  intervening  into account,  SLA  lack  l e v e l s i n the  subtractive  1984;  the  1980;  1981).  debate about  of  development  students experiencing  e f f e c t s of  LI  i s that  l i m i t e d b i l i n g u a l i s m , w i t h which  bilingualism  important  the  t h i s i n terms of  i d e n t i f i e d groups of  negative  Lambert On  on  finding  development  bilingualism.  (1981) d e s c r i b e s LI,  t h i s p r o c e s s of  important  in c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c growth.  have  as  (Chamot & O ' M a l l e y ,  a s i g n i f i c a n t influence  proficiency.  inadvertently  the  such  1986).  SLA  as  in  area,  and  1981).  begins exposure  - LI be  age  for  purposes takes cognitive resolved  (or  this  development  -  fairly  Before puberty, to  beginning  l t does  instruction  not  in) a  L2,  24  as  l o n g as c o g n i t i v e development  through  age  12  ( t h e age  Cummins ( 1 9 8 1 ) r e f e r s interdependence, languages  (even  development  given widely  L2 a r e  i n L2  proficiency  at  the  l e a r n i n g of  the  t i m e when  f u n c t i o n s of  the range of  these  of  level t o L2  to  ranged  .60-.70.  is valid,  ( i n LI)  show a such  Evidence  supporting  this  i s presented  s t u d i e s , the  .42-.77, w i t h  p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h  is  LI and  variables,  In a d d i t i o n ,  LI  previous  other  from  of  be  n i n e s t u d i e s ( e . g . , Cummins, 1976;  L2  LI  of  language  s t r o n g l y t o each o t h e r and  In t h e s e  (1976)  functions ( i n L2).  hypothesis  Genesee & Hamayan, 1979)  between LI and  exposure  t h e same u n d e r l y i n g d i m e n s i o n ,  Cummins' ( 1 9 7 9 ) a r t i c l e .  similar  with  a s p e c t s of  the  L2 CALP a r e h y p o t h e s i z e d  abilities.  from  1977;  a f u n c t i o n of  intensive  of c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h  prediction Swain,  is partially  interdependence  nonverbal  Toukomaa  A l s o , the development  f u t u r e l e a r n i n g of  CALP s h o u l d r e l a t e  and  S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s and  literacy-related  predict  pattern  varying surface features),  t h a t the c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c  S i n c e LI and  m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of  If  or  two  language s t r o n g l y a i d i n g development  interdependent.  proficiency  will  completed).  one.  have h y p o t h e s i z e d  begun.  i s largely  up  t o a common u n d e r l y i n g p r o f i c i e n c y ,  Cummins ( 1 9 7 9 ) and  and  FLA  e x i s t i n g between a b i U n g u a l ' s  of one  the second  by w h i c h  i n t h e LI c o n t i n u e s  LI and  L2  similar  as v e r b a l  L a p k i n 8. in  correlations  the m a j o r i t y i n L2 showed a  language a p t i t u d e  very and  25  IQ v a r i a b l e s . LI  and  L2  usually  F o r example,  verbal  i n the  nonverbal Ekstrand  IQs  IQ o r  language  .60-.70 r a n g e , tended  (1978) has  investigated  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  t o be also  aptitude  while  i n the  reviewed  t h o s e between LI and  .40-.50  range.  several  studies  are generally  reviewed  i n Cummins' ( 1 9 7 9 ) a r t i c l e ,  suggests  that  the range  between LI and  L2  are  assessing  degree.  t h e same u n d e r l y i n g d i m e n s i o n  vacuum.  that  maintain  i s low,  learning  L2  also  suggest  to those  not  exist  i n an  are several  factors  F o r example,  not be  (or maintaining L I ) .  hypothesis a l s o presupposes  adequate  L2  between  when m o t i v a t i o n t o l e a r n CALP w i l l  L2  to a s i m i l a r  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between LI and  (1979) s u g g e s t s  of  There  ( L l - L l , L2-L2) measures.  LI)  in those  E k s t r a n d ' s (1978) f i n d i n g s  m e a s u r e s o f CALP i n c o m p a r i s o n  an  than  t h e c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c a s p e c t s o f LI and  reduce  intralanguage  from  i s t h e same a s f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s  or e x p e r i e n t i a l  which might  Although  E k s t r a n d (1978)  However, t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s do  affective  L2.  variables.  Cummins ( 1 9 7 9 ) and measures of  lower  L2  which  ( c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged  .20-.50) i n t h e s e s t u d i e s  that  m e a s u r e s were  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between LI and  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  both  an  applied  The  L2  Cummins (or  t o the  task  interdependence  exposure  to both  1anguages. Cummins ( 1 9 7 9 ) p r o p o s e s c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c a s p e c t s of  that  t h e view  language  of  the  proficiency  i n LI  and  26 L2  as  a u n i f i e d dimension  regarding  the  learning.  issues  First,  of  gives  rise  to  two  predictions  b i l i n g u a l education  and  age  and  in 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 ,  predicted  that  effective  in promoting cognitive/academic p r o f i c i e n c y  transfer  of  (either  to  learn  the  extent  this proficiency  transference Ly  to  will  or  Second,  is predicted  instruction  t o Ly  will  o c c u r when t h e r e  In s c h o o l  Ly.  that  that  i n r e l a t i o n t o age learners  c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c L2  younger  learners  younger). for  An  However, t h i s w i l l  (i.e.,  and who  (e.g., Appel,  1979;  L2  This to  motivation  learning,  came t o  it  Canada  developed,  s k i l l s more r a p i d l y  not  necessarily  proficiency  made a b o v e .  of  the  unrelated  considerable  Ekstrand,  r e l a t i n g age  t o L2  learning  These s t u d i e s  for older  1977;  will  than  be  the  to  CALP  learners  s k i l l s m e a s u r e d by  conventional  proficiency  are  i n the  case  oral  s u p p o r t s the  fluency,  of  prediction  shown a  L2  standardized  syntax  clear and  t y p e s of  L2  tests.  i n a s p e c t s of  to communicative p h o n o l o g y , and  studies  Hoefnage1-Hoh1e,  cognitive/academic  less clear  directly related  BICS), such as  Snow &  in mastery  as  findings  number of  have c o n s i s t e n t l y  m o r p h o l o g y as w e l l  The  L2  Lx,  1979).  examination  advantage  in  came t o Canada when t h e y were  those a s p e c t s of  (Cummins,  1978)  (who  is  occur.  adequate  when t h e y were o l d e r ) , whose CALP I s b e t t e r acquire  it is  i s adequate exposure  e n v i r o n m e n t ) and  older  also  i n Lx  L2  L2 skills  listening  (i.e.,  27  comprehension  (Ekstrand,  Hoefnagel-Hohle, an  advantage  on  a r r i v a l ) on  1978).  on  reported  tests.  older  oral  immigrant  comprehension,  the  that  findings  where o l d e r  learners. f i n d i n g s may  the  present  exposure  i s that  oral  learners.  L2  and  perform better  measures that  l o a d on  only  learners L2  earlier that  in t h i s chapter.  s t u d e n t s who  suffered  no  v a r i a b l e on  the  as  show an  given  (Ekstrand, trend  for  in r e l a t i o n  age  are  the  from areas  advantage from  sufficient older any  1978). older  cognitive/academic  Wright  a r r i v e d i n Canada a t  the  l e a r n e r s on  W r i g h t ' s (1974) s t u d y , Ramsey and  which  listening  follows  l e a r n L2,  on m e a s u r e s o f  academic handicap  language s k i l l s  to  (1977)  accent  i s that to  performed  generalization  than younger  c l e a r exception  i s Ramsey and  not  CALP f a c t o r  to perform better  skills  do  and  depend upon  and  old  significantly  A cautious  motivation  an  only  p r e d i c t i o n which  learners will  The  well  years  learners  perform  t h e o r e t i c a l framework  to the  the  reports  listening  Ekstrand  fluency  The  and  In a r e a s s u c h  l e a r n e r s most o f t e n  over younger  older  was  (6-10  hand, Snow  these s k i l l s .  measurement p r o c e d u r e s u s e d . these  phonology  l e a r n e r s d i d not  the  learners  other  production  than younger  Snow &  example, Oyama (1978)  (1978) found  immigrant  better  On  measures of that  Oyama, 1978;  both p r o d u c t i v e  Hoefnagel-Hohle better  For  f o r younger  comprehension  1977;  as  (1974) 6 or  on m e a s u r e s o f  mentioned reported  7 or  younger  English  t o g r a d e norms f o r the  Toronto  28 system. was  However, f o r t h o s e who  a clear  negative relationship  performance.  at o l d e r  between AOA  ages,  there  and  However, Cummins' ( 1 9 8 1 ) r e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e  data suggests that accounted  arrived  f o r by  this negative relationship  LOR.  do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  can be  Ramsey and W r i g h t ' s (1974)  contradict  largely  findings  those of o t h e r s t u d i e s .  Ramsey and W r i g h t ' s (1974) c o n c l u s i o n s a r e b a s e d on s t a n d a r d s c o r e s , w h e r e a s most o f t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s  (e.g.,  1979;  and  E k s t r a n d , 1977)  learners  i n t e r m s o f raw  l e a r n e r s may further  have compared o l d e r  (absolute) scores.  l e a r n more L2  in absolute  rapidity  AOA  does  appear  w i t h which  F o r example, at  a g e s 6-7  t h e L2  t o have s u b t l e  in these s t u d i e s  immigrant  g r o u p w i t h an LOR  t h e 6-7  AOA  at e i t h e r  t o g r a d e norms t h a n t h e 4-5 there  o f 6-7  (1981)  e f f e c t s on grade  children  the norms.  who  W i t h i n each  grade  o r 8-9.  For  o f 5 were somewhat of  In s c o r e s a t b o t h LOR  of  Thus,  t h e AOA  of  (1974) as a c r i t i c a l  t o have some i m p o r t a n c e  g r a d e norms.  a g e s 4-5  arrived  g r o u p w i t h an LOR  and 8-9.  h i g h l i g h t e d by Ramsey and W r i g h t does appear  AOA  i s a sharp d e c l i n e  5 and 7 between AOA  towards  be  learners  made somewhat more r a p i d p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s  example,  Also,  t o younger  l e a r n e r s approach  arrived  7.  older  ( 1 9 7 4 ) and Cummins'  norms t h a n t h o s e who  closer  Thus,  1981).  B a s e d on Ramsey and W r i g h t findings,  younger  terms but s t i l l  b e h i n d g r a d e norms i n c o m p a r i s o n  (Cummins,  Appel,  i n terms of  LOR  level,  6-7 age  progression  there  is a  29  linear  increase in absolute score with  within  e a c h AOA  level,  absolute score with a g e s 14-15 t h e PVT) arrived  there  LOR.  For  is a  a t a g e s 4-5  However, t h e  example,  14-15  1974)  acquired AOA  group  findings  Wright's  from  to  Cummins  (1974) d a t a  unit  .30  1978).  CALP i s b e t t e r d e v e l o p e d , proficiency already in  more r a p i d l y  exists  t h e new  manifest  (1987) a n a l y z e d  a d v a n t a g e d LEP  students  English  f o r academic purposes  English  in a l l subject areas.  English  proficiency  math s k i l l s schooling  by  than  those  vs.  normal  who  26.3).  deviates AOA  group.  the  Ekstrand,  L2  younger  findings 1977;  of  Snow 8.  l e a r n e r s , whose LI  cognitive/academic l e a r n e r s because i t  i s therefore available  for  use  context.  Collier 1,548  (as measured  (1981) r e a n a l y s i s o f Ramsey  /  T h u s , o l d e r L2  i n t h e LI and  at  (27.1  i s consistent with  than  arrived  f o r t h e 4-5  t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s ( e . g . , Appel , 1979; Hoefnagel-Hohle,  addition,  increase in  in 1 year  i s 1.6  In  t h o s e who  in 7 years  b e l o w t h e g r a d e mean compared  and  linear  a c q u i r e d more E n g l i s h v o c a b u l a r y  (Ramsey & W r i g h t ,  The  AOA.  level  the  l e n g t h of  while  Science Research (Science Research  receiving  in  instruction  V a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d were  l n t h e LI upon a r r i v a l ,  a c h i e v e m e n t were m e a s u r e d by  required for  t o become p r o f i c i e n t  upon a r r i v a l ,  i n E n g l i s h o r LOR.  time  L2  and  and  A s s o c i a t e s (SRA)  and  number o f y e a r s  of  content-area  Achievement  A s s o c i a t e s , 1978)  AOA,  basic literacy  s t u d e n t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on  the  Series  in reading,  in  language  30  arts,  mathematics, s c i e n c e , and s o c i a l  indicated  t h a t LEP s t u d e n t s who e n t e r e d  a g e s 8-11 were t h e f a s t e s t reach  the 50th  subject at  areas  percentile tested.  both  on n a t i o n a l  2-5 y e a r s t o  norms i n a l l t h e  the performance  l e v e l of  A r r i v a l s a t a g e s 12-15  the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y  a s much a s 6-8 y e a r s  the program  t h e p r o g r a m a t a g e s 8-11, when  g r o u p s h a d t h e same LOR.  require  t h e ESL p r o g r a m a t  LEP s t u d e n t s who e n t e r e d  LEP p e e r s who e n t e r e d  experienced  The r e s u l t s  achievers, requiring  a g e s 5-7 were 1-3 y e a r s b e h i n d  their  studies.  a n d were p r o j e c t e d t o  to reach  g r a d e - l e v e l norms i n  a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t when s c h o o l e d a l l i n t h e L 2 .  Whereas  some g r o u p s o f LEP s t u d e n t s may r e a c h p r o f i c i e n c y subjects least  i n as l i t t l e  as 2 years,  i n some  i t i s p r o j e c t e d that at  4-8 y e a r s may be r e q u i r e d f o r a l l a g e s o f LEP s t u d e n t s  to reach  g r a d e - l e v e l norms o f n a t i v e s p e a k e r s  in a l l subject  a r e a s o f l a n g u a g e a n d a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t , a s m e a s u r e d on standardized  tests.  L2 p r o f i c i e n c y quickly; much  they  longer  assume. require  and academic achievement  i n v o l v e a developmental  time  than  school  personnel  When s c h o o l e d e x c l u s i v e l y a minimum o f 5 y e a r s  standardized  tests.  advantaged students, educational  do n o t o c c u r  process  that takes a  have t e n d e d t o  i n the L2, s t u d e n t s  to reach  t h e 50th  p e r c e n t i l e on  This  i s t r u e even  f o r t h e most  that  i s , t h o s e who have a s t r o n g  b a c k g r o u n d a n d who come f r o m  m i d d l e - c l a s s background  (Collier,  a middle-  1987; Cummins,  o r upper  1981).  31 2.3  PRESENT STUDY Overrepresentation  special 1983;  education  Tucker,  students L2,  the  can  has  1980; be  an  W r i g h t 8, S a n t a C r u z ,  assessed  accurate  Scale  C a n t o n e s e ) (Yung, Stanford-Binet administered 1 9 8 6 a ) , and (Woodcock, immigrant  be  of  the  their  1981), t h e  in English)  these  in t h e i r  is likely  academic  LI  and  to  potential.  (HK-WISC, a d m i n i s t e r e d  short  f o r m of  (Thorndike,  the Edition  Hagen, and  (SB:  to  FE,  Sattler,  t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y were a d m i n i s t e r e d  in  (WLPB)  Cantonese-speaking  c h i l d r e n f r o m Hong Kong.  briefly  c h i l d r e n f r o m Hong Kong were r e c r u i t e d  reviewed.  populations  the U n i t e d  related  the U n i t e d  are  largely  intelligence  the  J a p a n e s e and  States  (Lynn,  distinguishing populations  are  profile  f r o m t h a t of C a u c a s i a n  Generalizat1ons of  s t u d i e s have shown  have a d i f f e r e n t  S t a t e s and  Kingdom  of  the  this  that  populations  (Lynn,  1988).  Caucasian  that Oriental students'  the  The  are  the  principal  and O r i e n t a l scores  in  1987).  of e t h n i c O r i e n t a l s i n  & Chan,  will  performance  d e r i v e d f r o m s t u d i e s of  Pagliari,  f e a t u r e s of  for  to O r i e n t a l p o p u l a t i o n s  A number of  Intelligence tests  United  If  Hong-Kong W e c h s l e r  for Children  s t u d i e s that are  Oriental on  study,  performance  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale: Fourth  1984)  Since study,  their  In  (Brosnan,  1983).  with measures g i v e n  estimate  In t h e p r e s e n t Intelligence  diverse students  been a p e r s i s t e n t p r o b l e m  comparisons of  provide  of c u l t u r a l l y  32 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by somewhat h i g h e r Spearman's g a s a s s e s s e d from the f a c t o r component 1981).  s c o r e s d e r i v e d from the f i r s t tests  O r i e n t a l s a l s o tend  intelligence  abilities,  and p e r c e p t u a l  among O r i e n t a l For  values  10-year-old  appear  relatively  t o be  indicated  British  percentile  and  Samples o f  the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s  that  Kingdom  (Raven, C o u r t ,  s t a t u s (SES).  &  The  t h e Hong Kong sample o b t a i n e d a  h i g h e r mean on t h e P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s  sample.  Hong Kong b o y s o b t a i n e d  o f 71.48, w h i c h  Hong Kong g i r l s is equivalent  obtained  obtained  a mean p e r c e n t 11e  children  Perceptual  a mean  o f 68.44, w h i c h  On t h e o t h e r hand,  an i d e n t i c a l  i s equivalent  than  i s e q u i v a l e n t t o an IQ o f 108.5.  t o an IQ o f 107.4.  b o y s and g i r l s 51.72, w h i c h  a study t o  T h e s e g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n were m a t c h e d f o r  significantly  and  hand,  i n Hong Kong a n d t h e U n i t e d  of s c h o o l i n g and socioeconomic  The  by t e s t s o f s p a t i a l  populations.  children  1983).  results  the  abilities  s c o r e s on t e s t s o f  On t h e o t h e r  i n Hong Kong c h i l d r e n .  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  years  speed.  1967, 1974,  f o r some o f t h e m a j o r v i s u a l - s p a t i a l  abilities  Raven,  t o have h i g h  principal  i n s t a n c e , L y n n , e t a l . (1988) c o n d u c t e d  ascertain verbal  (Wechsler,  as represented  s c o r e s on t e s t s o f v e r b a l low  i n t e l l i g e n c e or  by t e s t s o f a b s t r a c t r e a s o n i n g o r  of the Wechsler  visual-spatial  general  British  mean p e r c e n t i l e o f  t o an IQ o f 100.5.  were a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d  t h e Space R e l a t i o n s  Speed S c a l e s from the Primary  Mental  33  Abilities  Test  (PMA)  (Cattell,  t o measure v e r b a l a b i l i t i e s . Hong Kong c h i l d r e n high  Kong and ability noted  resembled  than  they  do  on  Cummins, 1981;  study  Collier,  were t e s t e d i n b o t h two  obtain  languages an  English,  educational regression  The  1987)  their  analyses  present that  Thus, the  longer  education  i n Canada  of e n r i c h m e n t ,  and  not  test  be  c o g n i t i v e and  longer  children  their  On  as  experience parents'  relationship  language measures. First,  and  LOR  have  it  i n Canada  correlated.  performance  t h e c o n t r a r y , due  have been  was  obtained  the b e t t e r t h e i r  they  potential  included for  three hypotheses. s t u d e n t s ' AOA  in  p o s s i b l e to  of C a n t o n e s e , and  to determine  ( o r LOR),  results  v a r i a b l e s such  o c c u p a t i o n s were  immigrant  the  spatial  children  i n Canada, p r i o r  t h e E n g l i s h m e a s u r e s s h o u l d be.  lack  Unless  i t may  LOR  o f use  had  immigrant  s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s w o u l d be  the  Hong  previous s t u d i e s (e.g.,  L2.  Predictive  immigrant  p e r f o r m a n c e on  that both  of a c h i l d ' s academic  in order  study  in having  populations.  in that  LI and  g e n d e r , AOA,  frequency  that  high perceptual  findings  from  a r e compared,  attainments  hypothesized  on  The  differs  t o s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on  and  ability,  test  Spearman's g c o n f i r m p r e v i o u s l y  current functioning.  with  indicated  o b t a i n h i g h e r means on  accurate estimate  c h i l d r e n ' s age,  a word f l u e n c y  results  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of O r i e n t a l present  and  Japanese c h i l d r e n  low word f l u e n c y .  Japanese c h i l d r e n  The  and  The  Spearman's g, h i g h s p a t i a l  s p e e d , and  the  1971)  i n Canada,  to the  34  poorer  their  performance  on t h e C h i n e s e measure w o u l d b e .  W i t h r e g a r d t o AOA, o l d e r l e a r n e r s were h y p o t h e s i z e d better  performance  measures. better  Older  than  younger  l e a r n e r s on t h e E n g l i s h  l e a r n e r s were a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d  performance  on t h e C h i n e s e  t h e younger ones.  Secondly,  t o have  measure b e c a u s e o l d e r  l e a r n e r s w o u l d have o b t a i n e d e d u c a t i o n than  t o have  i n Chinese  longer  s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC  performance  was h y p o t h e s i z e d t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t  positive  correlation  with  If there  is  their  interdependence  o f CALP a c r o s s  HK-WISC p e r f o r m a n c e t h e SB: F E . be SB:  on t h e SB: F E . languages,  s h o u l d be p r e d i c t i v e  Finally,  a high nonverbal FE.  performance  the s u b j e c t s '  of performance  i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t  a n d low v e r b a l a b i l i t i e s  S u b j e c t s ' performance  on n o n v e r b a l  on  there would  profile  on t h e  measures  (e.g.,  t h e 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 ) w o u l d be significantly  better  than  their  performance  m e a s u r e s ( e . g . , t h e SB V o c a b u l a r y subtests). present  & Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s  On t h e o t h e r hand, t h i s p r o f i l e  i n t h e HK-WISC p e r f o r m a n c e  on t h e v e r b a l  s h o u l d n o t be  b e c a u s e t h e HK-WISC was  standardized  i n Hong Kong, where t h e s u b j e c t s m i g r a t e d  As  t h e r e w o u l d be a l a r g e r  a result,  their areas.  difference  HK-WISC a n d SB: F E s c o r e s i n v e r b a l than  from.  between nonverbal  35 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY 3.1  SUBJECTS  Thirty-three  Cantonese-speaking  Hong Kong were r e c r u i t e d  f o r t h i s study.  eliminate practice effects, previously Scale  tested with  for Children  Intelligence  Stanford-Binet (Thorndike,  the  none of  (Wechsler,  Intellience  In o r d e r  these  Hagen, & S a t t l e r ,  1967,  1974,  Edition  1986a), or  the  age  was  (LOR)  was  from the  6.33 other  of  was 3.17  that  1.74  s u b j e c t s ' AOA  The  the  stepwise  11.83  a minimum of  initial  t h i s s u b j e c t ' s AOA  r e s u l t s of  and  (mean AOA  & a maximum o f  years, with  years).  years  and  years) .67  statistical LOR  year  significantly  regression analyses.  analyses.  sample o f 32  They were s t u d e n t s  had  a final  different years,  and  LOR  T h e r e were 21  with (mean  & a maximum indicated  a f f e c t e d the Therefore,  final  statistical  subjects.  f r o m f o u r Richmond s c h o o l s whose  r a n g e d f r o m 4-7.  All  residence  analyses  from the  T h i s study  FE)  subject's  of  9.27  t h i s s u b j e c t ' s d a t a were e x c l u d e d  placement  One  length  was  (SB:  1984).  y e a r s , w h i c h were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  a minimum o f 6.42 LOR  3.33  the  Woodcock  (WLPB) (Woodcock,  in a regular classroom.  (AOA)  been  Wechsler  1981),  c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d arrival  from  to  c h i l d r e n had  1981), o t h e r  Scale: Fourth  Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y  on  students  Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e  (HK-WISC) (Yung,  Scales  immigrant  male and  grade 11  female  36 students.  The  a range of  9.33  3.2  mean age t o 13.50  present  study  t e s t s and  one  was  in Cantonese  given  while  the  was  a  o t h e r was  language, L 2 ) .  The  more  Information The  Sattler, Test for  years,  i n v o l v e d three measures. One  of  (subjects' native  given  the  with  Two IQ  in t h e i r  SB:  on  two  was  .78;  with  Test  with  the  measures  IQ  Manual  the Wechsler  and  The  score  .60  with  WISC-R F u l l  Abstract/Visual  to  &  the  Area  SB  for a  and  correlation  .83.  The with  sample  between  Scale  score  i t was  .73;  s c o r e s on  Scores  on  the  the  and  SB  Reasoning, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning,  S h o r t - T e r m Memory A r e a s c o r r e l a t e d a b o u t  and  WISC-R V e r b a l  WISC-R P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e s c o r e , Scale scores.  the  obtain  Hagen,  1974)  WISC-R V e r b a l  i t was  hand,  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale  WISC-R P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e s c o r e Scale  was  measures  other  (Thorndike,  children.  tests  language p r o f i c i e n c y .  R e a s o n i n g A r e a c o r r e l a t e d .72  Scale score, with  On  in E n g l i s h in order  Composite s c o r e  WISC-R F u l l  Verbal  L2.  (WISC-R) ( W e c h s l e r ,  non-exceptional  SB  and  1986b) r e p o r t s c o r r e l a t i o n s between  Children-Revised 205  LI  subjects' English  and  IQ  in E n g l i s h ( s u b j e c t s ' second  given  FE T e c h n i c a l  were  language, L I ) ,  purpose of g i v i n g these  Composite s c o r e s  the  .73  11.01  years.  language t e s t .  l a n g u a g e measure was  SB  sample was  d e t e r m i n e s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e d i f f e r e n c e s on  t h a t were g i v e n  of  this  MATERIALS The  to  of  e q u a l l y as  and high  37 with  t h e WISC-R V e r b a l  t h e WISC-R V e r b a l  and Performance S c a l e s c o r e s .  Scale,  the c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged  .64-.68; a n d f o r t h e WISC-R P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e , from  independent  validation  (Livesay,  (SAS)  and T e s t  ranged  s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d .  1986) compared SB A r e a S t a n d a r d Composite w i t h  white elementary c h i l d r e n . significantly  different  (123.33 v s . 120.63). s c a l e s were  Scale  Scale  C o r r e l a t i o n s between Scale  vs. Verbal  Scores  vs. Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning),  Scale  v s . S h o r t - T e r m Memory).  Reasoning),  Composite  Composite), .28 (WISC-R  .38 (WISC-R  a n d .31 (WISC-R  Livesay  s c o r e s on t h e SB: F E were s l i g h t l y  s c o r e was  the v a r i o u s  v s . SB T e s t  v s . A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning),  Scale  alternative  Age  Scale  f r o m t h e mean SB T e s t  i n d i c a t e d that while  One  WISC-R IQ s c o r e s o f 166 g i f t e d  Mean WISC-R F u l l  .55 (WISC-R F u l l  (WISC-R F u l l  Full  of  they  t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e SB: F E , a number o f  study  and  from  .63-.67. Since  .58  For  Full  (1986) f o u n d  lower t h a n  Full  that  t h e WISC-R IQs  t h e SB: F E i s an a c c e p t a b l e  t o t h e WISC-R, u s e o f t h e SB: F E i n e v a l u a t i o n  t h e g i f t e d w o u l d r e d u c e t h e number o f s t u d e n t s  eligibility  meeting  requirements.  Carvajal  & Weyand (1986) r e p o r t e d a c o r r e l a t i o n  o f .78  between SB: F E SAS a n d WISC-R IQs f o r 23 t h i r d - g r a d e children. SB  Test  T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  C o m p o s i t e mean ( 1 1 3 . 3 ) a n d t h e WISC-R F u l l  mean ( 1 1 5 ) .  R o t h l l s b e r g (1987) o b t a i n e d  Scale  a significant  38  difference  between  t h e WISC-R F u l l  the  SB T e s t  and  second grade c h i l d r e n .  mean (112.53) a n d  C o m p o s i t e mean (105.53) i n a sample o f 32  correlation similar  Scale  between  first  However, t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e  t h e SB: F E SAS a n d WISC-R IQs was  ( r = .77).  In summary, t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the  SB: F E a n d t h e WISC-R a n d t h e d e g r e e o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e  between  t h e r e s p e c t i v e means s u g g e s t  common c o n c e p t u a l In Scale  f o rChildren  the  Stanford-Binet  FE)  (Thorndike,  t h e Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e (HK-WISC) (Yung,  Intelligence Scale:  Battery-English  (Wechsler,  Form  i n Cantonese  (a southern  after  o f work on a d a p t a t i o n ,  2 years  modification,  Chinese  The HK-WISC was  and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n  1,100 5-15 y e a r s  equivalents  (WISC)  1949) a n d t h e WISC-R ( W e c h s l e r , 1974)  i n Hong K o n g ) .  1986).  a m o d i f i c a t i o n of  f o rChildren  commonly u s e d  Lee,  E d i t i o n (SB:  (WLPB) (Woodcock, 1984)  1981) i s b a s i c a l l y  Intelligence Scale  administered  of  Fourth  form o f  t o the s u b j e c t s .  HK-WISC (Yung,  the Wechsler  1981), t h e s h o r t  e t a l . , 1 9 8 6 a ) , a n d t h e Woodcock Language  were a d m i n i s t e r e d The  the t e s t s share a  background.  t h i s study,  Proficiency  that  introduced  translation,  on a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  o l dChinese c h i l d r e n  A l t h o u g h most s u b t e s t  dialect  sample  i n Hong Kong ( L a u &  items a r e t r a n s l a t e d  o f t h e WISC o r WISC-R, a few i t e m s a r e a d a p t e d  f r o m t h e 1971 B r i t i s h  version  o f t h e WISC a n d t h e W e c h s l e r  39  Adult  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale  were made t o a v o i d 1984).  (WAIS) ( W e c h s l e r ,  items s p e c i f i c  T h e r e a r e 12 s u b t e s t s ,  into Verbal  Scale  subtests  A r i t h m e t i c , Vocabulary, Performance Scale Arrangement, Block Mazes). subtest  that  difference 1984).  t o American  and they  Similarities,  ( P i c t u r e Completion,  subtests, Vocabulary  Picture  i s the only the language  r e q u i r e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of Cantonese  properties  Span) a n d  Assembly, Coding, and  i s not a t r a n s l a t e d e q u i v a l e n t ;  According  t o L e e a n d Lam ( 1 9 8 8 ) ,  (factor pattern matrices,  items  (Chan,  the f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c  covariance  m a t r i c e s of  common f a c t o r s , a n d t h e m a t r i c e s  of uniqueness) of the  HK-WISC a r e i n v a r i a n t f r o m t h o s e  on t h e WISC-R.  ( 1 9 8 6 ) have s u g g e s t e d reliability.  that  respectively. those .96  The  Scale  IQs) (Wechsler,  SB: F E ( T h o r n d i k e  some o f t h e s u b t e s t s and elementary  Copying),  while  levels  o f .91, .81, a n d .91  others  (e.g.,  .90 f o r P e r f o r m a n c e , &  1974).  e t a l . , 1986a) I s d e s i g n e d f o r  In t h e c o m p l e t e b a t t e r y  preschool  year  coefficient  S c a l e IQs  These average c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e comparable t o  a g e s 2-0 t o 23 y e a r s . FE,  t h e HK-WISC h a s s a t i s f a c t o r y  o f t h e WISC-R (.94 f o r V e r b a l ,  forFull  Lau a n d L e e  The HK V e r b a l , P e r f o r m a n c e , a n d F u l l  have an a v e r a g e r e l a i b l l i t y  (Chan,  have been d i v i d e d  (Information,  Design, Object  Efforts  culture  Comprehension, and D i g i t  subtests  Among t h e s e  1955).  are administered school  only  ages (e.g.,  are administered  o f t h e SB: at the  A b s u r d i t i e s and  only  Number S e r i e s a n d E q u a t i o n  a t the upper Building).  Of  40  the  15 s u b t e s t s ,  Vocabulary,  only  6 run throughout  Comprehension, P a t t e r n  Bead Memory, a n d Memory make up t h e s h o r t six  subtests,  t h i s study.  Thus, a t o t a l  t o the s u b j e c t s .  short  form  of  subtests.  four  f o r Sentences.  the M a t r i c e s  i s that  areas:  subtest  These s i x s u b t e s t s In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e  was a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d  of seven  SB: FE s u b t e s t s  every  Comprehension  estimates  S e n t e n c e s ) and Nonverbal Analysis,  four area  o f two f a c t o r  (Vocabulary,  Reasoning,  scores:  guiding  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  the  Memory  other  evaluations.  differs  two f a c t o r  The V e r b a l  from the Verbal  f o r Sentences subtest  hand, t h e N o n v e r b a l  Score d i f f e r s the  of these  (Pattern  Sattler's  varimax  the development  score  Verbal  Reasoning/Visualization  suggest  Factor  The s h o r t  C o m p r e h e n s i o n , a n d Memory f o r  H i s a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s with  psycho-educational  The SB T e s t  scores.  Q u a n t i t a t i v e , a n d Bead Memory) u s i n g  ( 1 9 8 8 ) method.  types  ( S A S ) c a n be o b t a i n e d i n  Reasoning, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l  i s b a s e d upon t h e s e  form can y i e l d  were  c h i l d was e x p o s e d t o t h e same  Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g , a n d S h o r t - T e r m Memory. Composite  in  The m a j o r a d v a n t a g e o f u s i n g t h e  S t a n d a r d age s c o r e s Verbal  Analysis, Quantitative,  f o r m o f t h e SB: F E .  given  the s c a l e -  rotation  scores in and Comprehension  R e a s o n i n g SAS i n t h a t  score  i s included.  Reasoning/Visualization  On t h e  Factor  f r o m t h e A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS i n t h a t  Q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d Bead Memory s u b t e s t  scores are  41 included.  According  to Sattler  e x c e l l e n t norms, r e l i a b i l i t y , The  (1988),  t h e SB: FE h a s  and v a l i d i t y .  WLPB (Woodcock, 1 9 8 4 ) 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 t h e Woodcock-Johnson P s y c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l (Woodcock, 1 9 7 7 ) . for  The WLPB h a s e i g h t s u b t e s t s w i t h  age 3 t o g e r i a t r i c  are the primary  level.  sources  Four s u b t e s t c l u s t e r  (Letter-Word  norms scores  f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an  i n d i v i d u a l ' s performance: ( 1 ) Oral Vocabulary,  Battery  Language  (Picture  Antonyms-Synonyms, & A n a l o g i e s ) , ( 2 ) R e a d i n g I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Word A t t a c k , & P a s s a g e  C o m p r e h e n s i o n ) , ( 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 ) B r o a d Language ( O r a l Language, R e a d i n g , & W r i t t e n  Language).  According  WLPB i s a p r o m i s i n g  t o Noyce ( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d Q u i n n ( 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e  tool  that w i l l  p i c t u r e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  f u r n i s h a comprehensive  language s k i l l s  Spanish) f o r a broad range of purposes.  (in English &  In a d d i t i o n ,  A n d e r s o n a n d M o r r i s ( 1 9 8 9 ) s u g g e s t t h a t t h e WLPB may be a useful  tool  f o r the assessment of c u l t u r a l l y  diverse  students. 3.3  PROCEDURES Before  conducting general  c a r r y i n g out t h i s study, permission f o r i t was o b t a i n e d  from v a r i o u s sources.  p e r m i s s i o n was o b t a i n e d  Educational  Psychology  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  First,  from t h e Department o f  and S p e c i a l Education  of the  Columbia, the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  42 Columbia's Behavioral Richmond S c h o o l  S c i e n c e s S c r e e n i n g Committee, a n d  Board.  the s u b j e c t s ' p a r e n t s had  given  study, Form  consent  Secondly,  consent  (see Appendix A ) .  f o rtheir  t h e y were a s k e d  child  was o b t a i n e d  When t h e p a r e n t s  to participate  t o complete a Background  obtaining permission,  the researcher  t h e HK-WISC, SB: F E , a n d WLPB t o t h e c h i l d r e n . control  progressive errors,  effects, half  test  such  as p r a c t i c e  were t e s t e d w i t h  WLPB f i r s t . sessions.  t h e SB: F E a n d t h e f i r s t Therefore, The t i m e  because A n a s t a s i  determining  after  retest  remained c o n f i d e n t i a l .  between  reliability.  while half  that  an 1-month  i n two  interval  Each c h i l d was identity  to standardized  e a c h c h i l d was t e s t e d i n two s e s s i o n s , e a c h 1 1/2 h o u r s .  l o c a t e d i n the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l .  T e s t i n g took  o t h e r s ' performance.  place  I t was p r e s u m e d  t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d n o t remember enough  influence  were  intelligence  number s o t h a t h i s / h e r According  Thus,  t e s t s was 1 month  approximately  for approximately  a room  a n d boredom  t h e WLPB was a d m i n i s t e r e d  interval  i d e n t i f i e d by a s e r i a l  lasting  In o r d e r t o  four s u b t e s t s of the  (1988) h a s s u g g e s t e d  t e s t s c a n be g i v e n  procedures,  administered  t h e HK-WISC a n d t h e  f o u r s u b t e s t s o f t h e WLPB f i r s t ,  tested with  that  Information  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d .  of the c h i l d r e n  first  in  in this  (see Appendix B ) . After  for  from  items t o  43 On scores  t h e HK-WISC, raw s c o r e s were c o n v e r t e d (M_ = 10 & SJJ = 3 ) w i t h i n  group.  Then  Deviation Scale  these  IQ, a n d a F u l l scores  found  (except  a Composite is similar scales  Digit  Finally,  A l l the conversion (Yung,  converted  1981).  (Sattler,  1988).  Standford-Binet (Thorndike,  area  On t h e SB: F E ,  converted  The c o n v e r s i o n  scores.  c l u s t e r were summed t o o b t a i n cluster  score  cluster  scores  Language,  Score  on t h e W e c h s l e r t a b l e s c a n be f o u n d  Edition  On t h e WLPB, raw s c o r e s were Then  the part  the c l u s t e r  Language,  the level  scores score.  was o b t a i n e d  f o r each The  by summing t h e  Reading, and W r i t t e n  a n d t h e n d i v i d i n g by t h r e e .  o f 500 r e p r e s e n t s  into  and S c o r i n g , the  f o r B r o a d Language f o r Oral  (M = 100  The C o m p o s i t e  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale: Fourth  into part  scores  Then  s c o r e s were c o n v e r t e d  IQ e m p l o y e d  e t a l . , 1986a).  t a b l e s c a n be  own age g r o u p .  S c o r e (M = 100 8. Sfi = 1 6 ) . t o the Deviation  Span),  i n t o SAS o r s c a l e d s c o r e s (M  the examinee's  these  Scale  IQ i s b a s e d on t h e P e r f o r m a n c e  the Guide f o r A d m i n i s t e r i n g  value  (except  s c a l e d s c o r e s were u s e d t o o b t a i n a r e a  & SD = 1 6 ) .  in  IQ, a P e r f o r m a n c e  T h e s e c a n a l s o be r e f e r r e d  subtests  i n t h e HK-WISC Manual  = 50 8. SD = 8) w i t h i n  Scale  (M = 100 8. SJD = 1 5 ) . The V e r b a l  Mazes).  s c o r e s were f i r s t  these  IQ.  the Performance Scale  subtests  raw  Scale  i s b a s e d on t h e V e r b a l  while  own age  s c a l e d s c o r e s were u s e d t o o b t a i n  IQs, i n c l u d i n g a V e r b a l  to as standard IQ  t h e examinee's  into scaled  For a l l c l u s t e r s a  of performance  44  approximately  equal  English-speaking most c l u s t e r high  100  600.  and  These s t a n d a r d  A standard  a standard  score  for  group w i t h  the  average c l u s t e r  conversion  t h e WLPB (Woodcock, 3.4  found  range  of  400  to a  15,  a  i s provided.  distance a  subject's score  d i f f e r e n c e score score  i s the  same  reference  group.  The  i n the  the of as  E x a m i n e r ' s Manual  of  1984).  S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSES Means and  on  be  than  of  i s b e i n g made ( e . g . ,  subject's cluster  t a b l e s can  less  average c l u s t e r  A cluster  f o r the  The  s c a l e , b a s e d upon  the  which comparison  score  of  d e v i a t i o n of  s u b j e c t ' s grade placement).  the  score  i s above o r b e l o w t h e  z e r o means t h a t  States.  low  s c o r e s a r e b a s e d on  cluster the  f i f t h - g r a d e level  p u p i l s i n the U n i t e d  s c o r e s extends from a  of about  mean o f  t o the b e g i n n i n g  the  test  IQ and  the  standard  d e v i a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s p e r f o r m a n c e  l a n g u a g e m e a s u r e s were computed  t h i r d hypothesis  lower v e r b a l hypothesis,  abilities that  HK-WISC c o u l d be  regarding  profile.  Scale  correlated.  Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n  to determine  the  and  regression  nonverbal  testing  the  scores  and  SB  Test  summary s c o r e s .  a n a l y s e s were p e r f o r m e d  the  were  the SB:  FE,  constructed  intercorrelations  Several  and  C o m p o s i t e s c o r e s were  matrices  c o r r e l a t i o n s and  to  second  i f p e r f o r m a n c e on  t o p r e d i c t p e r f o r m a n c e on  HK-WISC F u l l  subtest  For  i s , to determine used  the h i g h  in order  stepwise  in order  of  multiple  to determine  the  45 significant present  predictive variables ( e . g . ,  psychometric b a t t e r y .  LOR f o r r e g r e s s i o n testing  The combination of AOA and  a n a l y s e s was e s p e c i a l l y  this study's  sample s i z e ,  AOA & LOR) on the  several  first  hypothesis.  significant  Due to the small  stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n  were performed i n s t e a d of u s i n g one.  for  If a  analyses  significant  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 , a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) was computed to determine significant  differences  r e p o r t e d in Chapter 4.  between groups.  The r e s u l t s  the  are  46 CHAPTER  IV  RESULTS T h i s chapter analyses the  descriptive statistics  subtest  and  correlation  variance  d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  r e s u l t s of  and  statistical include  the p r e d i c t i v e  coefficients  summary s c o r e s ,  the  These r e s u l t s  f o r e a c h of  regression analyses,  a n a l y s i s of  4.1  r e s u l t s of  s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on  measures, Pearson  multiple  the  conducted f o r t h i s study.  v a r i a b l e s and  and  presents  IQ and of  (ANOVA) t o d e t e r m i n e  the p r e d i c t o r s  the  subsequent  language  stepwise  operations  the  significant  groups.  DESCRIPTIVE S T A T I S T I C S  4.1.1  Demographic  Information  In t h e p r e s e n t v a r i a b l e s of (AOA),  study,  the  e a c h s u b j e c t were  l e n g t h of  residence  attainment educational  following predictive i n c l u d e d : age  i n Canada  (AOC), g e n d e r , s c h o o l , g r a d e ,  arrival  ( L O R ) , age  father's highest  ( f a t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n ) , mother's attainment  on  of  child  educational  highest  (mother's e d u c a t i o n ) ,  father's  occupation  (HK),  father's occupation  (Canada),  occupation  (HK),  mother's occupation  (Canada), whether  child before  mother's  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 (MSEB), w h e t h e r t h e  child  months o f s t u d y i n g C h i n e s e b e f o r e was  of  r e c e i v i n g education  s t u d i e d Chinese (MSCB), w h e t h e r  in Chinese,  frequency  of  the  English before, the  child  studying  47 Chinese  (FREQSC), a n d f r e q u e n c y  o f s p e a k i n g Cantonese at  home.  Table 1 Means a n d S t a n d a r d Variables  D e v i a t i o n s o f Some o f t h e P r e d i c t i v e  M  SD  9.27 1 .74 11.01  1.29 .65 1.18  35.75  23.96  50.00  15.39  Predictor Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e (LOR) Age o f C h i l d (AOC) Months o f S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e (MSEB) Months o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e B e f o r e (MSCB) Frequency of S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e (FREQSC)  1 .28  2.90  N o t e . n = 32 Table of  1 shows t h e means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f some  the p r e d i c t o r s .  minimum was  years  o f 6.42 & a maximum o f 11.83 y e a r s ) .  1.74 y e a r s  3.17 y e a r s ) . of  The mean AOA was 9.27  ( w i t h a minimum The 32 c h i l d r e n  11.01 y e a r s ( r a n g i n g f r o m  4-7  in this 9.33  study  students.  (10 In g r a d e 4, 11  21 a t D i e f e n b a k e r ,  Francis Xavier). also  h a d a mean age  They were  i n g r a d e 5, 7 i n s c h o o l s (8 at  1 at McKinney, & 2 at S t .  Family's socioeconomic  i n c l u d e d i n the present  LOR  t o 13.50 y e a r s o l d ) .  g r a d e 6, & 4 i n g r a d e 7) a t f o u r d i f f e r e n t Brighouse,  The mean  o f .67 y e a r & a maximum o f  T h e r e were 21 male a n d 11 f e m a l e attending grades  (with a  study.  s t a t u s ( S E S ) was  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 a t t a i n m e n t s a n d  48 occupations  i n Canada and Hong Kong.  parents' highest parents  attainments.  ( 4 1 % ) h a d g r a d e 12/13 e d u c a t i o n .  subjects'  f a t h e r s ( 4 1 % ) than  secondary school  Table  educational  Table  2 shows t h e Most o f t h e  However,  more  mothers (16%) had post  trainings.  2  Parents'  Highest  Educational  Attainments Parent  Educational  Attainment  Grade 6 G r a d e s 7-9 G r a d e s 10-11 G r a d e 12/13 College/Technical Un i v e r s i t y Note. a = Table  Father  Mother  1 2 4 12 4 9  3 5 5 14 4 1  School  32  3  Parents'  Occupations Father  Occupat ion  Canada  Professional Manager i a l CIerical Sal es Service Housewi f e Others Note, n =  32  7 18 0 3 4 0 0  Mother  Hong Kong 5 22 0 3 2 0 0  Canada 5 4 4 2 2 14 1  Hong Kong 5 4 6 3 0 14 0  49  As  shown  in managerial the  other  In T a b l e  3,  most o f  p o s i t i o n s (both  hand, most o f  the  s u b j e c t s ' f a t h e r s were  i n Canada & Hong K o n g ) .  On  t h e m o t h e r s were h o u s e w i v e s ( b o t h  in  Canada & Hong K o n g ) . Among t h e they  s u b j e c t s , 25  were a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l s  (MSEB) r a n g e d f r o m of  these  Canada.  (31%)  In t h i s  of  Chinese  21  i n Hong Kong.  to 6 years.  On  the  the  duration  the  table,  s c o r e s were  they  came  to  (MSCB) r a n g e d f r o m 2  (34%)  the  subjects  frequency  10  week.  of  The  study,  to  (FREQSC) r a n g e d f r o m 2 t o 15 h o u r s p e r  1981)  ' o f t e n ' speak Cantonese  summary and  standard subtest and  S c a l e s c o r e was and  Intelligence  d e v i a t i o n s of scores.  As  Performance  High Average range.  S u b j e c t s ' mean V e r b a l  On  the  shown  Scale  other  i n the Average  the  hand,  range.  P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e s c o r e s were  not  different.  the V e r b a l  h i g h e s t mean s c o r e  subtests, on  at  ' a l w a y s ' s p e a k C a n t o n e s e a t home.  s u b j e c t s ' mean F u l l  mean V e r b a l  On  hand, a l l  their  i n the  significantly  other  s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n t h i s  4 shows t h e means and  HK-WISC (Yung,  duration  of  (66%) 11  The  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e Hong K o n a - W e c h s l e r S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n (HK-WISC) Table  their  s t u d i e d E n g l i s h when  them were s t u d y i n g C h i n e s e .  home, w h i l e 4.1.2  had  s t u d i e d Chinese before  case,  When t h e  lessons  Finally,  1.50  s u b j e c t s had  7 years.  in  (78%)  the  p e r f o r m a n c e among a l l t h e  the  subjects obtained  Comprehension  subtest  HK-WISC s u b t e s t s ) but  the  (best the  lowest  50 mean s c o r e subtests, subtest  they  obtained  b u t t h e lowest  subtest. standard  on t h e A r i t h m e t i c s u b t e s t .  Overall,  mean s c o r e  mean s c o r e  on t h e C o d i n g  on t h e P i c t u r e C o m p l e t i o n  t h e i r mean s u b t e s t  s c o r e s were w i t h i n 1  d e v i a t i o n above o r b e l o w t h e mean, e x c e p t  Comprehension, Block 1 standard  Table  the highest  On t h e P e r f o r m a n c e  Design,  and Coding s u b t e s t s  on t h e  (more  than  d e v i a t i o n above t h e mean).  4  Means a n d S t a n d a r d HK-WISC Summary S e a l e t a Ful 1 Verbal Performance Subtest:b I n f o r m a t i on Simi1ari t ies Arithmetic Vocabu1ary Comprehens i on D i g i t Span P i c t u r e Completion P i c t u r e Arrangement Block Design O b j e c t Assembly Coding Mazes  D e v i a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC M.  Scores S_D  112.41 108.00 113.91  10.71 12.21 11 .73  9.22 12.88 9.19 10.53 14.06 11 .03 9.78 12.03 13.09 12.09 13.41 11.25  2.60 2.42 2.24 2.30 3.44 2.82 2.51 3.32 2.93 2.96 3.73 2.19  N o t e , a = 32 a - Summary s c o r e s have a mean o f 100 a n d a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 15. A v e r a g e r a n g e i s 90-109. b - S u b t e s t s c o r e s have a mean o f 10 a n d a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 3. A v e r a g e r a n g e i s 7-13.  51 4.1.3  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t Fourth E d i t i o n (SB: FE)  Intelligence  Scale:  T a b l e 5 shows t h e s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e SB: FE ( T h o r n d i k e , Hagen, & S a t t l e r ,  1986a).  Table 5 Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f t h e SB: FE S c o r e s SB: FE  M  SD  Summary:a 9 2 . 50 Test Composite Verbal Reasoning 7 9 . 16 112. 63 A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning 96. 25 Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning 84. 69 S h o r t - T e r m Memory 71 . 84 Verbal Comprehension N o n v e r b a l R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l I z a t i o n 104. 94 Subtest:b 37. 00 Vocabulary Comprehension 4 3 . 91 56. 00 Pattern Analysis 5 5 . 13 Matrices 48. 13 Quant i t a t i v e 5 2 . 16 B e a d Memory 34. 69 Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s Note, a = 3 2 a - Summary s c o r e s h a v e a mean o f 1 d e v i a t i o n of Average range b - S u b t e s t s c o r e s h a v e a mean o f 5 d e v i a t i o n of Average range 1  6  .  8 .  These  11 . 12 13. 27 13. 42 16. 13 13. 35 12. 06 12. 03 6. 27 7. 77 7. 38 7. 73 8. 07 7. 85 5. 58 0 0 and a s t a n d a r d is 0 and a s t a n d a r d is 4  8  9  -  1  1  2  -  5  8  .  0  .  s u b j e c t s ' mean T e s t C o m p o s i t e a n d 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 ( S A S ) w e r e i n t h e A v e r a g e range.  On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,  t h e i r mean V e r b a l  S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w e r e i n t h e Low A v e r a g e However, t h e i r mean A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l High Average range. (Sattler,  Reasoning and range.  R e a s o n i n g SAS was i n t h e  R e g a r d i n g t h e two f a c t o r s c o r e s  1 9 8 8 ) , t h e i r mean V e r b a l  Comprehension  Factor  52  S c o r e was i n t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n mean N o n v e r b a l average.  addition, Factor  lower  their  than  Nonverbal  their  mean V e r b a l  mean N o n v e r b a l  lower t h a n  R e a s o n i n g SAS.  their  scores,  and  different.  However, t h e i r  s c o r e was more t h a n In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r  was a b o u t  1 standard  to obtain  subtest In  and worst  subtest.  summary s c o r e s  cognitive/academic  d e v i a t i o n below the  Analysis subtest  4.1.4 D i f f e r e n c e s between S u b j e c t s ' Summary S c o r e s  in order  Vocabulary  d e v i a t i o n s b e l o w t h e mean.  on t h e P a t t e r n  t h e Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s  Subjects'  mean  Q u a n t i t a t i v e , and  mean Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s  2 standard  d i d best  t h e f o l l o w i n g were  d e v i a t i o n , above o r b e l o w t h e mean:  Bead Memory s u b t e s t s .  compared  Verbal  Comprehension.  Analysis, Matrices,  on  In  mean  Overall, their  p e r f o r m a n c e was i n V e r b a l  1 standard  sum, they  S c o r e was  R e a s o n i n g SAS.  Comprehension, P a t t e r n  score  S c o r e was  Reasoning/Visualization  Among t h e s e v e n mean s u b t e s t  mean.  their  p e r f o r m a n c e was i n A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g a n d  worst  subtest  while  Factor  summary s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  T h e i r best  within  Factor  Comprehension  S c o r e was 7.69 p o i n t s  Abstract/Visual  their  Reasoning/Visualization  T h e i r mean V e r b a l  7.32 p o i n t s  o f Slow L e a r n e r ,  HK-WISC a n d SB: F E  on t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E were  a better understanding  potential.  of t h e i r  C o m p a r i s o n s were made between  the  following scores:  Full  Scale  (FS), Verbal  and  Performance Scale  CPS) o f t h e HK-WISC w i t h  S c a l e CVS), Test  53 Composite (VC),  (TC), Verbal  Reasoning (VR), Verbal  A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning  Reasoning/Visualization As shown higher  HK  t h i s was  in Table  Full  Scale  the only  than Chinese w i t h  (AVR),  (NVRV) o f t h e SB: 6,  only  one  t h a n SB T e s t  s u b j e c t who regard The  and  Comrehenslon  Nonverbal FE.  subject  d i d not have a  Composite  score.  performed b e t t e r  t o the Verbal  Nonverbal  scores.  composite  s c o r e s r a n g e d f r o m 8-46  and  In  fact,  in English  Performance/  d i f f e r e n c e s between  t h e two  p o i n t s (M =  test  19.91  & SD  =  11.81).  Table  6  Subjects' Scores  D i f f e r e n c e s on  t h e HK-WISC and SB:  FE Summary  HK-WISOSB: FE Range  FS>TC  VS>VR  VS>VC  PS>AVR  PS>NVRV  1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70  4a 12 11 3 1 0 0  1 8 6 7  0 3 7 8 6 4 3  8 7 1 0 0 0 0  10 10 5 0 0 0 0  Note,  4  n = 32 a - Number o f Subjects  performance  4 0 Subjects  h a d g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s between  in Verbal  Performance/Nonverbal  (VS>VR: 1-58  their  & VS>VC: 11-66) t h a n  a r e a s (PS>AVR: 1-24  The mean d i f f e r e n c e between  their  Verbal  28.84 (SD_ = 1 7 . 9 9 ) .  R e a s o n i n g s c o r e s was  HK  & PS>NVRV:  Verbal  Scale  and In  1-27). SB  54 addition, and  SB  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r  Verbal  Comprehension  On  the  HK  P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e and  was  s c o r e s was  c o n t r a r y , t h e mean o f  only  1.28  (SD_ =  SB  their  36.16  (SD  In f a c t , i n SB  14  (44%)  a higher  On  hand, t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e between  other  P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e and  SB  s c o r e s was  11.42).  had  8.97  =  b e t t e r performance  Visualization. abilities to  (SD  their  4.1.5  17.37).  of  the scores  these  A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning. their  HK  Nonverbal R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n  i n SB  Overall,  In t h i s c a s e , Nonverbal  these  d i f f e r e d more than n a t i v e ( L I ) and  P e r f o r m a n c e on  =  Scale  d i f f e r e n c e s between  s u b j e c t s had the  Verbal  A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning  12.05). score  HK  6  (19%)  Nonverbal (L2)  them  Reasoning/  subjects" Verbal  second  of  cognitive  abilities  with  regard  languages.  t h e Woodcock Language  Proficiency  Battery (WLPB? On  t h e WLPB (Woodcock,  standard  1984), t h e  s c o r e o f 76.44 (SJD =  s u b j e c t s had  12.02) i n O r a l  a mean  Language  (Picture Vocabulary,  Antonyms-Synonyms, & A n a l o g i e s ) .  Reading  Identification,  (Letter-Word  Comprehension), 12.68). had  t h e i r mean s t a n d a r d  In W r i t t e n  a mean s t a n d a r d  result,  Language score  Word A t t a c k , s c o r e was  (Dictation  of 93.88 (SD  =  14.36).  and  B r o a d Language s t a n d a r d  deviation  (15)  Overall,  t h e i r mean O r a l  79.34 (S£  =  13.03).  Language,  (100),  while  =  they  As  a  s c o r e was  s c o r e s were more t h a n  b e l o w t h e mean  Passage  & Proofing),  t h e i r mean B r o a d Language s t a n d a r d  (SD  &  In  83.66  Reading, 1  standard  t h e i r mean  55  performance deviation  in Written  Language was w i t h i n  1  standard  b e l o w t h e mean.  4.2 PEARSON CORRELATION MATRICES Pearson determine scores.  correlation  matrices  were computed  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s u b t e s t 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  determined.  in order to  a n d summary t e s t s were  also  In a d d i t i o n , a l l t h e 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 Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n  matrices  IQ a n d l a n g u a g e m e a s u r e s i n o r d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  their  Scores were computed between t h e t o determine the  summary  scores  (see Tables  7-12). The r e s u l t s First, with and  in Tables  t h e HK F u l l  the Verbal Test  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  and Performance S c a l e  Full  s c o r e s o f t h e HK-WISC  Composite, Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning, and Nonverbal  Reasoning/Visualization HK V e r b a l  7-9 c a n be s u m m a r i z e d a s f o l l o w s .  Scale  scores  scores  o f t h e SB: F E .  Secondly,  correlated significantly  S c a l e , HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e HK V e r b a l  had  with  Thirdly,  t h e SB V e r b a l  HK-WISC a n d T e s t  the F u l l  and V e r b a l  Scale  scores  R e a s o n i n g SAS.  t h e HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e s c o r e s were  c o r r e l a t e d with  t h e HK  a n d SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e  Reasoning scores. no c o r r e l a t i o n  with  the  Scale  significantly  s c o r e s of the  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 R e a s o n i n g , and Nonverbal Visualization scale  scores  s c o r e s h a d no s i g n i f i c a n t  WLPB s t a n d a r d had =  o f t h e SB: F E .  scores.  the highest  Overall,  correlation  with  Reasoning/ F i n a l l y , a l l these  correlations  with  t h e HK V e r b a l t h e HK F u l l  any o f t h e  Scale Scale  scores s c o r e s <r  .82, p_<.01).  Table  7  Correlations  o f t h e HK-WISC Summary  Scores HK-WISC S e a l e  HK-WISC  Scale  Ful 1 1.00 .82** .78**  Ful 1 Verbal Performance Note. * ** Table  - S i g n i f i c a n t a t the - S i g n i f i c a n t a t the  .82** 1.00 .30*  .78** .30* 1.00  .05 1 eve 1 .01 1 e v e l  8  Correlations  between t h e HK-WISC and  SB: F E Summary HK-WISC  SB:  Performance  Verbal  FE  T e s t Composite Verbal Reasoning Abstract/Visual Reasoning Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning S h o r t - T e r m Memory V e r b a l Comprehension Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i on Note. * **  - Significant - Significant  Full  Verbal  .42** .06 .29 .59** . 19 .08  .20 .00 -.05 .57** -.01 -.02  .51**  .29  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  Scores  Scale Performance . 48** .07 .55** .36* .28 .14 .54**  57  Table  9  Correlations  between  t h e HK-WISC a n d WLPB Summary  Scores  HK-WISC S c a l e WLPB  Ful 1  Verbal  O r a l Language R e a d i ng W r i t t e n Language B r o a d Language  .23 .06 .20 .20  .26 .07 .25 .23  Table  Performance . 10 .02 .06 .08  10  Correlations  o f t h e SB: FE Summary  Scores SB: FE  SB: FE Test Composite ( T O Verbal Reasoning (VR) Abstract/Visual Reasoning (AVR) Quantitative Reasoning (QR) Short-Term Memory (STM) Verbal Comprehension (VC> Nonverbal Reasoning/ V i s u a l i z a t i o n (NVRV)  NVRV  VR  AVR  QR  STM  1.00 .64**  .64** 1.00  .74** .27  .66** .19  .75** .47**  .77** .92**  .91** .33*  .74**  .27  1.00  .32*  .46**  .41**  .74**  .66**  .19  .32*  1.00  .23  .28  .70**  .75**  .47**  .46**  .23  1.00  .68**  .75**  .77**  .92**  .41**  .28  .68**  1.00  .49**  .91**  .33*  .74**  .70**  .75**  .49**  1.00  TC  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t ** - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  VC  58 Table  11  C o r r e l a t i o n s between  t h e SB: F E a n d WLPB Summary  Scores  WLPB SB: FE  Oral Language  Reading  Written Language  Broad Language  .63** .75**  .55** .52**  .44** .48**  .59** .60**  .21  .25  .04  .19  .40*  .27  ,30*  .35*  .52**  .58**  .49**  .60**  .83**  .69**  .61**  .74**  .40*  .39*  .29  Test Composite Verbal Reasoning Abstract/Visual Reasoning Quantitative Reason i ng Short-Term Memory Verbal Comprehension Nonverbal Reasoning/ Visualization Note. * **  - Significant - Significant  From T a b l e s be n o t e d .  s c o r e s , except Verbal Test  t h e SB T e s t  C o m p o s i t e s were  significantly  a l l t h e HK-WISC, SB:FE, a n d WLPB summary t h e HK V e r b a l  Scale  scores.  S e c o n d , t h e SB  Reasoning scores c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  C o m p o s i t e , S h o r t - T e r m Memory, V e r b a l  Nonverbal all  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  8, 10, a n d 11, t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s c a n  First,  c o r r e l a t e d with  .42**  with the  Comprehension, and  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 o f t h e SB: F E a n d  t h e WLPB summary s c o r e s .  However, t h e SB V e r b a l  R e a s o n i n g s c o r e s d i d n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t any HK-WISC S c a l e  scores.  and Test  with  T h i r d , t h e 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 Performance Scale  correlation  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  t h e HK  Composite, Q u a n t i t a t i v e  R e a s o n i n g , S h o r t - T e r m Memory, V e r b a l  Comprehension, and  59  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 o f t h e SB: F E .  However, t h e SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g s c o r e s significantly Fourth,  c o r r e l a t e with  c o r r e l a t e d with  Abstract/Visual Visualization  the Test  Language, W r i t t e n  Language, a n d B r o a d  Fifth,  with  with  a l l t h e SB: F E ( e x c e p t  d i d n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t  HK-WISC S c a l e  scores.  summary s c o r e s  (except  t h e WLPB summary s c o r e s .  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  However, t h e s e  correlation  However, t h e s e with  a l l t h e SB:  factor  scores  c o r r e l a t e d with  t h e HK F u l l scores  scores  S c a l e , HK  i n Oral  Moreover,  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  O v e r a l l , the Nonverbal  did  scores.  Reasoning/Visualization Factor  scores had s i g n i f i c a n t  summary s c o r e s .  Comprehension  t h e HK-WISC S c a l e  Language, R e a d i n g , and Broad Language.  FE  with the  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e , a n d WLPB s t a n d a r d  factor  memory  i n Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reasoning) and a l l  correlate significantly the Nonverbal  in Quantitative  S i x t h , t h e SB V e r b a l  Factor scores had s i g n i f i c a n t  Finally,  t h e HK-WISC S c a l e  t h e SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d  R e a s o n i n g ) a n d WLPB summary s c o r e s .  not  standard  In a d d i t i o n , a l l t h e SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g  significantly  FE  Reasoning/  o f t h e SB: F E a n d t h e WLPB  scores correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y scores.  Composite,  Reasoning, and Nonverbal  scores  i n Oral  Language.  scores  scores.  t h e SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g s c o r e s were  significantly  scores  t h e WLPB summary  d i d not  these  a l l t h e SB:  Reasoning/  60 Visualization t h e SB T e s t Table  F a c t o r s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t  Composites  <r =  correlation  with  .91, p_<.01>.  12  C o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e WLPB Summary  Scores WLPB  WLPB  Oral Language  Oral Language Reading W r i t t e n Language Broad Language  1.00 .76** .72** .89**  Note. ** - S i g n i f i c a n t As shown  in Table  Broad Language  .72** .78** 1.00 .87**  .89** .93** .87** 1.00  a t t h e .01  12, t h e WLPB summary with  each o t h e r .  scores  <£. =  C o r r e l a t i o n s between S u b t e s t A Pearson  determine subtests.  level  s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t  B r o a d Language s t a n d a r d 4.2.2  W r i t t e n Language  .76** 1.00 .78** .93**  correlated significantly Reading standard  Reading  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix  t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between  scores However,  correlation  the with  the  .93, p_<.01). Scores  was  computed  in order  to  t h e HK-WISC and SB: F E  61  Table  13  C o r r e l a t i o n s between  t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E S u b t e s t s SB: FE  HK-WISC  VOCAB  COMP  Verbal: Information -.23 .15 Similarities .17 .04 Arithmetic .07 .15 .14 Vocabu1ary -.21 Comprehension -.20 -.02 .23 Digit Span -.06 Performance: Picture Completion -.22 .05 Picture Arrangement .01 .10 .57** Block Design .28 Object AssemblIy-.31* -.27 Coding .06 -.02 Nazes .21 .31* Note. # **  - Significant - Significant  Table  BMEM0RY  SMEMORY  -.22 -.01 .11 -.28 -.24 .28  .17 .16 .13 .01 .00 .05  .55** .48** .36* .36* .38* .18  -.02 .13 .24 -.22 -.03 .34*  -.08 .05 .10 -.14 -.11 .34*  -.03  .05  .33*  .09  .00  -.04 .67** .35* .05 .15  .45** .44** .37* .05 .26  Digit  c o r r e l a t i o n s with Second,  .35* .24 .22 -.12 .27  .22 .49** .14 -.19 .37*  findings.  First,  the P i c t u r e  and a l l the Verbal  t h e SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e (QUANT) s u b t e s t the D i g i t  Span  and Block with  Design  subtest  t h e SB Bead Memory  (BMEMORY) a n d Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s (SMEMORY) s u b t e s t the P i c t u r e Arrangement,  Assembly the  SB M a t r i c e s  Block with  subtest  Design  subtest  Span) o f t h e HK-WISC h a d s i g n i f i c a n t  scores correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Third,  .17 .46** -.05 .00 .23  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  P i c t u r e Arrangement,  (except  scores.  QUANT  13 shows s e v e r a l  Completion, scores  MATRICES  PANALYSIS  Block  Design,  s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y subtest  scores.  Fourth,  scores.  and Object  c o r r e l a t e d with  only  t h e s c o r e s on  a n d Mazes s u b t e s t s h a d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  t h e SB C o m p r e h e n s i o n  (COMP) s u b t e s t  scores.  F i f t h , the  62 Block  Design  and Object  significantly subtest  with  scores.  Assembly  Coding subtest any  Finally,  subtest  t h e SB  only  the scores  C o m p r e h e n s i o n , a n d Memory  s c o r e s had s i g n i f i c a n t scores.  Secondly,  scores subtest  Thirdly,  d i d n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t  t h e SB M a t r i c e s correlation  Finally,  scores had s i g n i f i c a n t  with  f o r Sentences subtest  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  with the subtest t h e WLPB  t h e WLPB summary  t h e SB Bead Memory  scores.  t h e WLPB  O v e r a l l , the  scores had the highest  a l l t h e WLPB summary  the  subtest  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  R e a d i n g a n d B r o a d Language s t a n d a r d Memory  correlation  c o r r e l a t e d with  i n Reading).  all  on t h e SB P a t t e r n  F o u r t h l y , t h e SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e  significantly  (except  f o r Sentences  the scores  scores.  s c o r e s were  F i r s t , the  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  Reading standard  scores.  with  a n d WLPB  the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s .  only had a s i g n i f i c a n t  summary  on t h e  correlation  t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t  Analysis subtest  scores  Vocabulary  scores.  14 p r e s e n t s  WLPB summary  on t h e O b j e c t  d i d n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t  4.2.3 C o r r e l a t i o n s between Summary S c o r e s  SB V o c a b u l a r y ,  (PANALYSIS)  c o r r e l a t e d (the only  c o r r e l a t i o n ) with  scores.  SB: F E s u b t e s t  Table  the scores  significantly  negative  (VOCAB) s u b t e s t  scores correlated  t h e SB P a t t e r n A n a l y s i s  S i x t h , only  subtest  significant  Assembly s u b t e s t  scores.  63  Table  14  C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e SB: FE S u b t e s t Scores  a n d WLPB Summary  WLPB SB: FE  Oral Language  Vocabu1ary Comprehension Pattern A n a l y s i s Matrices Quantitative Bead Memory Memory f o r Sentences Note. *  Reading  Written Language  Broad Language  .70** .61** .25 .09 .40* .23  .54** .37* .34* .09 .27 .30*  .43** .40* .16 -.07 .30* .25  .57** .48** .26 .06 .35* .33*  .75**  .76**  .66**  .75**  - 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 t h e .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 o f S u b t e s t  a n d Summary S c o r e s  P e a r s o n c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were computed  i n order t o  d e t e r m i n e t h e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: FE scores. A s shown i n T a b l e had t h e h i g h e s t  1 5 , t h e HK I n f o r m a t i o n  c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e HK F u l l  P_<.01> a n d V e r b a l  subtest  scores  <r_ = .69,  <£. = .87, p_<.01> S c a l e s c o r e s .  On t h e  o t h e r h a n d , t h e HK P i c t u r e A r r a n g e m e n t s u b t e s t s c o r e s h a d t h e h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e ( r = .60, p_<.01).  Overall,  c o r r e l a t i o n was b e t w e e n subtest scores  the highest  t h e HK V e r b a l  (jr = .87, p_<.01>.  scores  significant  S c a l e and I n f o r m a t i o n  64  Table  15  C o r r e l a t i o n s between  t h e HK-WISC S u b t e s t  a n d Summary  HK-WISC Summary HK-WISC  Ful 1  Subtest  Verbal: Information Similarlties Ar i thmet i c Vocabulary Comprehensi on D i g i t Span Performance: P i c t u r e Completion P i c t u r e Arrangement Block Design O b j e c t Assembly Codi ng Mazes  . 87tttt .71tttt ,50tttt .76tttt • 80tttt -.10  . eotttt .59tttt .37tt .28 .28 .03  ,49tttt .35tt .08 -.02 - .04 -.09  N o t e . tt - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 tttt - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 Table of  16 shows o n l y  refer  t o A p p e n d i x C.  Verbal  subtests,  As shown  scores had the highest correlation  coefficient  HK-WISC s u b t e s t  Comprehension highest  .51tttt .60tttt .54tttt .55tttt .47tttt .15  in  intercorrelations  t h e f u l 1m a t r i x ,  this  correlation  Between  subtest  and P i c t u r e Completion s u b t e s t p_<.01  i n both  This  among a l l t h e the Verbal and  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e  and P i c t u r e Arrangement  <r = .45,  subtest  <r = .68, p_<.01).  was a l s o t h e h i g h e s t  s c o r e s , both  please  t a b l e , among t h e HK  and Comprehension  intercorrelations.  Performance subtest Similarities  For  the Information  .21 .33tt . 15 .12 .23 -.14  level level  the s i g n i f i c a n t  t h e HK-WISC s u b t e s t s c o r e s .  Scale Performance  Verbal  .69tttt .64tttt .40tt .57tttt .65tttt -.14  Scores  cases).  s c o r e s and s c o r e s were  On t h e o t h e r  hand,  t h e P e r f o r m a n c e s u b t e s t s c o r e s h a d no c o r r e l a t i o n s with Table  each  significant  other.  16  Significant  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e HK-WISC S u b t e s t  Scores  HK-WISC HK-WISC  INFO  SIM  ARITH  Verbal: Information (INFO) — .41** .42** Similaritles (SIM) .41** — — Arithmetic (ARITH) .42** — — Vocabulary (VOCAB) .62**.46** — Comprehension (COMP) .68**. 50** — Digit Span (DS) — — — Performance: Picture Completion (PC) .40* .43** — 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 ** - S i g n i f i c a n t  VOCAB  COMP  DS  PC  PA  BD  OA  COD  —  .62** .68**  —.40*  —  —  —  .46** .50**  —.43**.45**—  —  —  —  —  —  —  .46**  —  .46**  —  — —  —.45**  —  —  —  —  —  .45**  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — — —  — — —  — — —  — — —  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  —  .36* —  —  MAZ  —  66 Table  17  C o r r e l a t i o n s between  t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t  a n d Summary  Scores  SB: FE Summary SB: FE Subtest  TCOM  VERBR  Vocabulary .52** Comprehension .58** Pattern Analysis.65** Matrices .54** Quantitative .66** Bead Memory .53** Memory for Sentences .77**  .83** .89** .33* .09 .19 .24  .21 .26 .78** .79** .32* .31*  .63**  .49**  Note. # **  - Significant - Significant  Table SB Memory  17 p r e s e n t s  ABSTRACT  p_<.01) a n d V e r b a l  Comprehension  Matrices  Secondly,  .32*  .79**  .88**  .57**  (VERBC) F a c t o r  w i t h the  .89, p_<.01).  Quantitative  the  ( r = .88,  SB V e r b a l  T h i r d l y , t h e SB  (ABSTRACT) SAS ( r = .79,  with  t h e SB N o n v e r b a l  (NVERBAL) F a c t o r s c o r e s  besides  First,  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  correlation  Visualization  scores,  .21 .35* .59** .59** .70** .67**  F o u r t h l y , t h e SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t  the h i g h e s t  Finally,  .81** .78** .45** .20 .28 .36*  t h e SB C o m p r e h e n s i o n s u b t e s t  SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g p<.01).  .41** .41** .46** .29 .23 .90**  s c o r e s had t h e h i g h e s t  correlation  (VERBR) SAS (r_ = subtest  .10 .23 .25 .29 1.00 .10  C o m p o s i t e (TCOM) (£ = .77,  t h e SB T e s t  Reasoning  NVERBAL  the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s .  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  s c o r e s had the h i g h e s t  VERBC  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  f o r Sentences subtest  p_<.01) s c o r e s .  S-TMEMORY  QUANT  the h i g h e s t  Reasoning/  (jr. = .70, p_<.01).  the p e r f e c t c o r r e l a t i o n  subtest  s c o r e s had  between  t h e SB  a n d Q u a n t i t a t i v e (QUANT) R e a s o n i n g significant  correlation  was between t h e  67 SB  Bead Memory s u b t e s t  summary s c o r e s Table  a n d S h o r t - T e r m Memory  (S-TMEMORY)  ( r = .90, p_<.01).  18  Significant  Intercorrelations  o f t h e SB; F E S u b t e s t  Scores  SB: FE SB: FE  VOCAB  COMP PANALYSIS  Vocabulary (VOCAB) — .49** Comprehension (COMP) .49** — Pattern A n a l y s i s (PANALYSIS) .36* — Matrices (MATRICES) Quantitative (QUANT) — — Bead Memory (BMEMORY) — — Memory f o r Sentences .62** .49** (SMEMORY) Note• * **  - Significant - Significant  Table  full  matrix,  table, and In  .36*  —  —  .62**  —  ~  —  ~  .49**  —  —  —  —  .52**  —  —  —  —  ~  —  —  —  .52**  the highest  —  (except  Matrices).  .43**  .43**  the s i g n i f i c a n t  refer  scores.  t o A p p e n d i x D.  correlation  scores  a l l the other  For the  A s shown i n t h i s  was between  f a c t , Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s s u b t e s t with  .32*  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  Memory f o r S e n t e n c e s s u b t e s t  significantly  .32*  o f t h e SB: F E s u b t e s t  please  BMEMORY SMEMORY  —  18 o n l y p r e s e n t s  intercorrelations  MATRICES QUANT  t h e SB  Vocabulary  (r_ = .62, p_<.01).  scores  correlated  SB: F E s u b t e s t  scores  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 o n l y m e n t i o n s some of  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of intercorrelations, The  please  (1) general  school, & grade); occupations  (2)  (AOA,  SES  child  significant  a l l the  t o A p p e n d i c e s E and  LOR,  be  age  grouped  (parents' education (3)  &  parents'  language  s t u d i e d Chinese or E n g l i s h b e f o r e ,  r e c e i v i n g education 8. f r e q u e n c y  Among t h e age  of  SES  occupation  of  highest  i n Canada and  .86,  p_<,01).  correlation  intercorrelation  Hong Kong was  and  months o f  highest  the h i g h e s t  4.3  STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES  computed  in order  v a r i a b l e s of variables  stepwise  the  (r =  .80,  of  the  i n the  LOR  p_<.01).  father's  (r = the  .84, child before  p_<.01).  were  significant predictive  s u b j e c t s ' performance. included  was  AOA  and  multiple regression analyses  to determine  t h a t were  AOA  studying English  had  Different  correlation  of  (r. = -.42,  language v a r i a b l e s , whether  studied English before  child  C a n t o n e s e a t home).  (jr =  high  months  studying  variables, intercorrelation  v a r i a b l e s , the  Among t h e  frequency  speaking  a significantly  Among t h e  p_<.01).  in Chinese,  general  of c h i l d was  a l s o had  three  gender,  s t u d y i n g C h i n e s e or E n g l i s h b e f o r e , whether the  Chinese,  F.  into  of c h i l d ,  i n Canada & Hong K o n g ) ; and  (whether the  and  refer  For  19 p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s can  categories:  of  the p r e d i c t o r s .  the  Predictive  various analyses  were:  69 age  on  child  arrival  (AOA),  l e n g t h of  residence  (AOC), g e n d e r , s c h o o l , g r a d e ,  educational highest  attainment  educational  ( L O R ) , age  father's highest  (father's education),  attainment  of  (mother's  mother's  education),  father's occupation  (HK),  father's occupation  (Canada),  mother's occupation  (HK),  mother's occupation  (Canada),  whether  the  child  English  before  s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e , months o f  (MSEB), w h e t h e r  b e f o r e , months o f the  c h i l d was  (FREQSC), and  C a n t o n e s e a t home.  two  or  F i n d i n g s are  a l l the  given  followed  significance  (32  v a r i a b l e s were  used  multiple regression  below f o r o n l y  those  regression analyses  computed,  study,  three  the  stepwise  the  useful  to test  combination the  p e r f o r m a n c e on  For  please  stages. i n two  First,  or  three's  multiple regression the  19 p r e d i c t i v e  to determine  in p r e d i c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' performance.  stage,  of  G.  v a r i a b l e s were g r o u p e d  and  stepwise  small  regressions yielding predictive variables.  the p r e s e n t  analyses  the  three  frequency speaking  groups of only  to Appendix In  of  sample s i z e was  r e s u l t s of  refer  in Chinese,  frequency  Chinese  (MSCB), w h e t h e r  the  significant the  studied  Since  a s p r e d i c t o r s i n e a c h of analyses.  child  studying Chinese before  r e c e i v i n g education  studying Chinese  subjects),  the  studying  o f AOA  first  and  LOR  hypothesis  standardized  f o r the  that  these  In  analyses two  their this was  variables  t e s t s w o u l d be c o r r e l a t e d .  70  Secondly,  significant  identified multiple  i n Stage  were  1 were g r o u p e d f o r f u r t h e r  regression  predictabilities. identified  p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s that  analyses Finally,  i n Stage  analyses  4.3.1  their  stepwise  their  the s i g n i f i c a n t  1 were c o m b i n e d  AOA a n d LOR t o d e t e r m i n e predicting subjects'  t o determine  were  combined  predictors  i n d i v i d u a l l y with  combined e f f e c t s i n  performance.  Multiple  regression  i n S t a g e s 2 a n d 3 were f o r e x p l o r a t o r y  purposes.  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 on t h e HK-WISC Scores Initially,  paired with regression  analyses.  significant subjects'  Verbal  A s shown  Scale  since  no v a r i a t i o n s .  in Table  Scale  g e n d e r was  multiple  19, o n l y  g e n d e r was  the p r e d i c t i o n equation f o r  scores  every  r squares could  while  (AOC) f o r s t e p w i s e  enough t o e n t e r  be n o t e d t h a t before,  AOA a n d LOR were p a i r e d ,  age o f c h i l d  that  ( R s g = .16, p_<.05>.  subject  had s t u d i e d  It should  Chinese  n o t be computed b e c a u s e  there  were  71 T a b l e 19 R S q u a r e s o f A l l t h e P r e d i c t i v e V a r i a b l e s a n d HK-WISC S c a l e Scores HK-WISC Scale Predictor  Full  Verbal  Performance  Age on A r r i v a l Length of Residence Age of Child Gender School Grade Father's Education Mother's Education Father's Occupation (HK) Mother's Occupation (HK) Father's Occupation (Canada) Mother's Occupation (Canada) Studied English Before Months of Studying English Before Studied Chinese Before Months of Studying Chinese Before Receiving Education in Chinese Frequency of Studying Chinese Frequency of Speaking Cantonese  .03 .06 .00 .05 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01 .01 .01  .04 .10 .00 .16* .01 .01 .07 .02 .00 .02 .00 .02 .01 .00  .01 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .07 .02 .04 .00 .00 .00 .01  X  X  X  .01 .07 .02 .01  .01 .04 .00 .02  .00 .05 .05 .11  N o t e . x - R s q u a r e s c a n n o t be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l S i n c e AOA a n d LOR were h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related gender  t o s u b j e c t s ' performance, t o compute a d d i t i o n a l  presents the r e s u l t s Scale scores. subsequently, enter  16  t o 26%.  regression analyses.  of the a n a l y s i s  T a b l e 20  first;  AOA a n d LOR were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t However, t h e c o m b i n a t i o n  enough t o o f t h e s e two  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  Overall,  with  f o r s u b j e c t s ' HK V e r b a l  Gender e n t e r e d t h e e q u a t i o n  the equation.  v a r i a b l e s with  t h e y were c o m b i n e d  from  AOA, LOR, a n d g e n d e r were t h e o n l y  72 significant  predictive variables for subjects'  Scale  scores.  Table  20  M u l t i p l e Regression Analysis for Subjects' S c o r e s w i t h AOA. LOR, and Gender Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .39  . 16  .51  .51  Gender LOR >  HK  HK  Verbal  Verbal  Scale  Cum. F  FCh  . 16  5.52*  5.52  .26  .10  3.23*  1.92  .26  .26  3.23*  3.23  RsqCh  AOA Fu11  Equ .  A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t 4.3.2  the  M u l t i p l e Regression Scores On  the  SB:  FE,  were f o u n d  than  s q u a r e s of  a l l the  scores.  Again,  Chinese before computed due  to  .05  level  A n a l y s e s on  more s i g n i f i c a n t  f o r the  HK-WISC.  p r e d i c t o r s and  and  p e r f o r m a n c e on  l a c k of  SB:  21  analyses  Summary  shows t h e  subjects'  the  FE  predictive variables  the  SB:  child  SB:  variabilities.  regression  following findings.  the  Table  r s q u a r e s of whether  stepwise m u l t i p l e the  at  FE  FE  Summary  studied  could  Results in Stage  r  of 1  not  be  the  revealed  73 T a b l e 21 R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e SB: F E Summary S c o r e s  V a r i a b l e s and S u b j e c t s '  SB: FE Summary Scale Predictor  TCOM VERBR ABSTRACT QUANT STMEMORY VERBC NVERBAL  Age on A r r i v a l Length of Residence Age of Child Gender School Grade Father's Education Mother's Education Father's Occupation (HK) Mother's Occupation (HK) Father's Occupation (Canada) Mother's Occupation (Canada) Studied English Before Months of Studying English Before Studied Chinese Before Months of Studying Chinese Before Receiving Education in Chinese Frequency of Studying Chinese Frequency of Speaking Cantonese  .03 .05 .00 .04 .01 .00 .01 .00  .08 .12 .01 .00 .01 .00 .03 .12  .08 .06 .03 .01 .00 .04 .04 .02  .04 .00 .04 .20** .00 .06 .01 .01  .03 .01 .02 .01 .05 .00 .01 .01  .08 .13* .01 .00 .01 .00 .03 .13*  .00 .00 .00 .06 .01 .00 .05 .02  .04  .00  .00  .01  .17*  .03  .05  .01  .00  .00  .07  .01  .01  .02  .03  .01  .00  .02  .13*  .00  .07  .05 .03  .14* .11  .01 .02  .00 .00  .08 .02  .15* .13*  .01 .00  .03  .07  .00  .04  .01  .08  .01  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  .00  .00  .02  .04  .01  .01  .00  .01  .03  .00  .01  .00  .01  .01  .04  .04  .02  .00  .01  .02  .02  .10  .13*  .08  .01  .10  .10  .05  Note. x - R s q u a r e s c a n n o t be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l ** - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l First,  mother's o c c u p a t i o n (Canada) and f r e q u e n c y o f  s p e a k i n g Cantonese  a t home were s i g n i f i c a n t  v a r i a b l e s o f s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g s h o u l d be n o t e d  that  frequency  predictive SAS (VERBR).  of s p e a k i n g Cantonese  It  a t home  74 had  a negative  R e a s o n i n g SAS significant  of  p_<.05).  (QUANT).  SB  the  significant  Factor  scores  subjects'  (VERBC).  Reasoning/Visualization  Factor  variables age SB  of  i n Stage  child  (AOC)  Quantitative  first  and  inclusion  As  significant  shown  in t h i s  were s i g n i f i c a n t  R e a s o n i n g SAS.  accounted o f AOC  1.  f o r 20%  increased  of the  SB  for subjects'  Nonverbal  and  Verbal  no SB  Test  (ABSTRACT),  (NVERBAL)  and  scores.  combined p r e d i c t i v e t a b l e , gender  and  in p r e d i c t i n g s u b j e c t s '  Gender e n t e r e d the  Finally,  the  Overall,  Reasoning  only  in  (Canada),  were  (TCOM), A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l  shows the  Quantitative  (STMEMORY).  English before  p r e d i c t o r s were f o u n d  22  a  predictive variables  Composite  Table  SB  mother's occupation  p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s of  Comprehension  g e n d e r was  subjects'  S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS  c h i l d studied  significant  Verbal  T h i r d l y , father's occupations  mother's e d u c a t i o n ,  whether  SB  Secondly,  Hong Kong were s i g n i f i c a n t  subjects'  LOR,  ( r = -.36,  subjects'  p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e of  R e a s o n i n g SAS Canada and  c o r r e l a t i o n with  the  r square change.  p r e d i c t i v e value  by  equation The 1%.  75 Table  22  Mu11 i P1e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r t h e S u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Gender and Age of (AOC)  1 2 Fu11  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Gender AOC  .45 .47  .20 .21  .20 .01  7.64** 4.01*  7.64 .50  Both  .47  .21  .21  4.01*  4.01  Entered Variable(s)  Step  Equ  Note. * - Significant ** - S i g n i f i c a n t In  the second  occupation before, combined  of  Verbal  and  father's occupation were c o m b i n e d their  and  analyses and  performance ( i n Moreover,  father's occupation  Verbal  increased.  findings with  f o l l o w i n g were t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  Reasoning  their  t o compute r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s  significant  regression  C a n t o n e s e a t home were  Comprehension).  p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s c o u l d be  were no  mother's  the c h i l d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h  the s u b j e c t s ' V e r b a l  (HK)  FCh  level level  t h r e e ' s ) to determine  Verbal  Cum. F  mother's e d u c a t i o n ,  of s p e a k i n g  ( i n g r o u p s of  predictabilities  .05 .01  LOR,  whether  frequency  Reasoning  at the at the  stage,  (Canada),  and  Child  this  to determine However,  combination.  f i n d i n g s of  there The  the m u l t i p l e  f o r s u b j e c t s ' performance Comprehension  (Canada)  (see T a b l e s  in Verbal 23-33).  if  76 Table  23  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 (ME), a n d M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  . 15  .15  5.40*  5.40  .49  .24  .09  2.97*  1 .63  .49  .24  .24  2.97*  2.97  MCO LOR >  Cum. F  FCh  ME Fu11  Al1  Equ.  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t The  results  a t t h e .05  in Table  23 i n d i c a t e d  v a r i a b l e s , mother's occupation predictive  variable.  level t h a t among t h e t h r e e  ( C a n a d a ) was t h e b e s t  In a d d i t i o n ,  the combination  of these  t h r e e v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o 24% o f t h e 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 Table  i n Verbal  Comprehension.  24  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 R e a s o n i n g SAS 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) Entered Variable(s)  Step  FSCH LOR ME  1 2 3 F u l 1 Equ. Note  All  . *-  Three  Significant  at  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .36 .50 .57  .13 .25 .33  .13 .12 .08  4.51* 4.92* 4.57*  4.51 4.77 3.13  .57  .33  .33  4.57*  4.57  t h e .05 1 e v e l t  T a b l e 24 shows t h a t f r e q u e n c y o f speak i ng C a n t o n e s e home h a d  the  FCh  highest p r e d i c t ive value  among t h e s e  at  v a r i a bil e s .  77  The of  combination  o f LOR  the variances  Furthermore, the  v a r i a b l e accounted  i n t h e s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l  the inclusion  predictability  Table  and t h i s  f o r 25%  Reasoning  of mother's education  SAS.  increased  t o 33%.  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 ( F S C H ) Entered Variable(s)  Step ~1 2  Cum. MultR  ME FSCH >  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F  RsqCh  FCh  737  7l3  Tl3  4.68*  4.68  .57  .32  .19  4.43*  3.86  .57  .32  .32  4.43*  4.43  LOR Full  Equ.  Note.  A l l Three  * - Significant A s shown  highest these  a t t h e .05  i n Table  25, mother's education  predictive value.  three  subjects' Table  Moreover,  v a r i a b l e s accounted  SB V e r b a l  Factor  (Canada) had the best  the combination  predict  27% of the variances Reasoning.  of these  of  f o r 32% of the v a r i a n c e s i n  Comprehension  Second,  had the  the combination  scores.  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 .  mother's occupation  Verbal  level  First,  p r e d i c t i v e value.  v a r i a b l e s was  able  to  of subjects' performance i n  78  Table  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 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 w i t h LOR. M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO). and 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)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  MCO FSCH  .37  . 14  .14  4.73*  4.73  >  .52  .27  . 13  3.45*  2.56  Three  .52  .27  .27  3.45*  3.45  FCh  LOR Fu 1 1 Equ . A l l  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t Table  at  t h e .05 1 e v e l  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 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 O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO). 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) Cum. Mul tR  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  Step  MCO FSCH  1 2  >  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .39  . 15  . 15  5.40*  5.40  .51  .26  .11  3.26*  2.00  .51  .26  .26  3.26*  3.26  LOR Fu 1 1 E q u .  All  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t The  results  occupation these  i n Table  27 i n d i c a t e d t h a t  i n Canada h a d t h e h i g h e s t  variables.  accounted  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  In a d d i t i o n , t h e s e  f o r 26% o f t h e v a r i a n c e s  Comprehension  Factor  scores.  mother's  predictability  among  three v a r i a b l e s  i n s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l  79 T a b l e 28 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . 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) Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2 3  FSCH LOR SEB  Fu 1 1 E q u . Al1  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  As shown at  i n Table  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36 .50 .54  . 13 .25 .29  .13 .12 .04  4.51* 4.92* 3.91*  4.51 4.77 1.67  .54  .29  .29  3.91*  3.91  increased these  from  this  28, f r e q u e n c y  variable,  13 t o 2 5 % .  three v a r i a b l e s  FCh  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  of speaking  home h a d t h e h i g h e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y .  was c o m b i n e d w i t h  Cum. F  Cantonese  M o r e o v e r , when LOR  the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  Furthermore,  the combination of  increased the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  t o 29%.  T a b l e 29 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. S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . 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) Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2  SEB FSCH >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .36  .13  .13  4.53*  4.53  .54  .29  . 16  3.79*  3.10  .54  .29  .29  3.79*  3.79  LOR Full  Equ.  Note. * -  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at t h e  .05  FCh  level  B a s e d on t h e r e s u I t s i n T a b l e 29, among t h e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s , whether the c h i Id s t u d i e d  E n g l i s h b e f o r e was t h e  80  best three  predictive  variable.  v a r i a b l e s was a b l e  s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l  Also,  the combination  to predict  Comprehension  of these  29% of the v a r i a n c e s i n  Factor  scores.  T a b l e 30 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME). M o t h e r ' s Occupation i n Canada (MCO). 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) Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  Cum. Mul tR  1 2  MCO FSCH  .37  .14  . 14  4.73*  4.73  .49  .24  .10  3.01*  2.00  .49  .24  .24  3.01*  3.01  >  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F FCh  Step  RsqCh  ME Ful 1  Equ.  A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  T a b l e 31 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 Comprehension F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h Mother's E d u c a t i o n (ME). Mother's Occupation i n Canada (MCO). 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) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO FSCH >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .39  15  .15  5.40*  5 .40  .49  24  .09  2.98*  1 .65  .49  24  .24  2.98*  2 .98  FCh  ME Fu11  Equ. A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at As  shown  in Tables  t h e .05 l e v e l 30 a n d 31 , m o t h e r ' s  occupation i n  Canada h a d t h e h i g h e s t p r e d i c t a b i 1i t i e s among t h e s e  three  81 variables  (14% i n Verbal  Comprehension). speaking  Reasoning  In a d d i t i o n ,  & 15% i n V e r b a l  the i n c l u s i o n  of frequency of  C a n t o n e s e a t home a n d m o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n  the p r e d i c t a b i l i t i e s & 9% i n V e r b a l  i n both  cases  (10% ln Verbal  increased Reasoning  Comprehension).  T a b l e 32 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME). S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . 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) 7  Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2  Cum. Mul tR  FSCH ME >  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .36  .13  . 13  4.51*  4.51  .50  .25  .12  3.15*  2.28  .50  .25  .25  3.15*  3.15  SEB Ful1  Equ. Al1 Three  N o t e . tt - S i g n i f i c a n t a t  t h e .05 1 eve 1  T a b l e 33 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 l1 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 wi t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n ( M E ) . S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . a n d F r e q u e n c y o f Speak i ng C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  1 2  ME FSCH  .37  .13  .13  4.68*  4.68  .50  .25  . 12  3.14*  2.18  .50  .25  .25  3.14* 3.14  >  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  SEB Full  Equ.  A l l Three  N o t e . tt - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  82 T a b l e s 32 a n d 33 p r e s e n t t h e s u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l scores respectively. speaking (13%)  R e a s o n i n g and Comprehension  As shown  in Table  among t h e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s . of a l l these  v a l u e by 12%.  SB V e r b a l  inclusion  of the other  predictability  1.  (from stage  Since  predictive  increased this  predictive  The  two v a r i a b l e s d i d i n c r e a s e t h e  13 t o 2 5 % ) .  predictive study  related  of these  of the  Factor scores.  i n v o l v e d the combination  this  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y combination  variables  Comprehension  the s i g n i f i c a n t  Stage  In a d d i t i o n , t h e  had the best p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  subjects'  last  predictability  On t h e o t h e r hand, b a s e d on T a b l e 33,  mother's education  The  Factor  32, f r e q u e n c y o f  C a n t o n e s e a t home h a d t h e h i g h e s t  combination  with  the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s f o r  variables  hypothesized  a n d LOR  identified in  t h a t AOA  a n d LOR  t o s u b j e c t s ' performance, the  two v a r i a b l e s w i t h  variables should  o f AOA  the s i g n i f i c a n t  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 a n d 35 show t h 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 e s with  AOA,  Verbal  LOR, a n d m o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n  R e a s o n i n g and V e r b a l  respectively. all =  these  equation  Comprehension  in Table  34, o n l y  v a r i a b l e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t  .24, p_<.05).  following  As shown  f o r t h e s u b j e c t s ' SB  First,  and a c c o u n t e d  scores  the combination  predictive  On t h e o t h e r hand, T a b l e  findings.  Factor  of  value (Rsq  35 p r e s e n t s t h e  mother's education  entered the  f o r 13% o f t h e r s q u a r e c h a n g e .  Then  83 the c o m b i n a t i o n  with  value  t o .26 (p_<.05).  Table  34  AOA  a n d LOR  Increased  the r square  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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME) Entered Variable(s)  Step 1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .49  .24  .49  .24  ME \ AOA > LOR /  Full  Equ.  Note. * Table  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  .24  2.97*  2.97  .24  2.97*  2.97  level  35  Multiple Regression Analysis for Comprehension F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h E d u c a t i o n (ME)  t h e S u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l AOA. LOR. and M o t h e r ' s  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  ME AOA  .37  .13  .13  4.68*  4.68  .51  .26  .13  3.33*  2.43  .51  .26  .26  3.33*  3.33  >  FCh  LOR Full  Equ.  Note. * Table  A l l Three S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  level  36 shows t h 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 f o r t h e  s u b j e c t s ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS. HK e n t e r e d not  the equation  selected  into  first.  the equation,  F a t h e r ' s occupat ion  Although combining  AOA  and LOR  these  two  were  in  84 v a r i a b l e s with  father's occupation  predictability  by 8%.  Table  d i d increase the  36  Mu11 i P 1 e R e a r e s s i on A n a l v s i s f o r t h e S u b j e c t s ' SB Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. a n d F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n Kona < FHKO) Entered Variable<s)  Step 1 2  FHKO LOR  S h o r t -Term i n Honq  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .42  .17  .17  6.36*  6.36  .50  .25  .08  3.11*  1 .40  .50  .25  .25  3.11*  3.11  >  FCh  AOA Full  Equ.  A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t Table  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  37 r e v e a l s t h e f i n d i n g  the s u b j e c t s ' performance from AOA.  i n S h o r t - T e r m Memory was i n c r e a s e d  13 t o 24% when f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n was c o m b i n e d In t h i s a n a l y s i s ,  selected  into  father's occupation  the equation  first,  selected.  In S t e p  occupation  ( C a n a d a ) and r e s u l t e d  predictability. variable =  that the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of  only  while  ( C a n a d a ) was  AOA and LOR were n o t  2, AOA was c o m b i n e d w i t h f a t h e r ' s  In S t e p  i n an i n c r e a s e i n  3, LOR was a l s o  i n c l u d e d , but t h i 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  .00004, p_<.05).  with  negligibly  (RsqCh  85 Table  37  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 S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (FCO) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 3  FCO AOA LOR  Full  Equ. A l l T h r e e  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Finally, First,  Table  frequency  highest  slightly Table  RsqCh  Cum. F  .36 .49 .49  .13 .24 .24  .13 .11 .00  4.47* 4.66* 3.00*  4.47 4.34 .002  .49  .24  .24  3.00*  3.00  the f o l l o w i n g  results.  38 p r e s e n t s  of s p e a k i n g  of t h i s  predictability  Cum. Rsq  a t t h e .05  predictability  combination  Cum. MultR  (Rsq =  level  C a n t o n e s e at  home h a d t h e  .13, p_<. 0 5 ) .  v a r i a b l e with  t o 25%.  Finally,  FCh  Secondly,  the  LOR i n c r e a s e d t h e the a d d i t i o n  o f AOA  (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 .  38  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 '1 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. 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) Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  1 2 3  FSCH LOR AOA  .36 .50 .51  .13 .25 .26  A l l Three  .51  .26  Full  Equ.  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  level  Cum. F  FCh  .13 .12 .01  4.51* 4.92* 3.30*  4.51 4.77 .30  .26  3.30*  3.30  86  In summary, t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s mother's education Factor  in predicting  s c o r e s and with  home i n p r e d i c t i n g highest  the best  (Rsq  Comprehension  of speaking  Cantonese at  R e a s o n i n g SAS b o t h from  13 t o 2 6 % ) .  provided the Moreover, the  (AOC) h a d t h e b e s t  f o r s u b j e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS  = .21, p_<.05).  was  (both  SB V e r b a l  o f g e n d e r a n d age o f c h i l d  predictability (Rsq  SB V e r b a l  predictability  combination  frequency  o f AOA a n d LOR w i t h  Furthermore,  f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n (HK)  p r e d i c t o r o f s u b j e c t s ' S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS  = .17, p_<.05).  v a r i a b l e s were  On t h e o t h e r hand, no p r e d i c t i v e  identified  f o r t h e s u b j e c t s ' SB T e s t  Composite, A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning, or Nonverbal Factor  scores.  education, provided in  in  the best  the combination of speaking  predictabilities  Reasoning  (33%)  M u l t i p l e Regression Scores On  and  and frequency  SB V e r b a l  4.3.3  Overall,  t h e WLPB, two s i g n i f i c a n t  whether Stage  the c h i l d  1.  predictive  Table  o f LOR, m o t h e r ' s  C a n t o n e s e a t home  of s u b j e c t s ' performance  and Verbal  Analyses  Comprehension  on t h e WLPB predictive  the r squares  v a r i a b l e s : AOA  t o lack of v a r i a t i o n s ,  for  whether  performance.  the c h i l d  r squares  s t u d i e d Chinese  identified  of a l l the  v a r i a b l e s a n d s u b j e c t s ' WLPB s t a n d a r d  Due  (32%).  Standard  s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e were  39 p r e s e n t s  Reasoning  scores.  c o u l d n o t be computed before  a n d t h e WLPB  87  T a b l e 39 R Squares of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e Standard Scores  V a r i a b l e s a n d S u b j e c t s ' WLPB WLPB Summary Scale  Oral Language  Predictor  Age on Arrival Length of Residence Age of C h i l d Gender School Grade Father's Education Mother's Education Father's Occupation (HK) Mother's Occupation (HK) Father's Occupation (Canada) Mother's Occupation (Canada) Studied English Before Months of Studying English Before Studied Chinese Before Months of Studying Chinese Before Receiving Education in Chinese Frequency of Studying Chinese Frequency of Speaking Cantonese  Reading  .09 .06 .04 .01 .02 .00 .08 .11 .00 .00 .02 .01 .13* .07  Written Language  Broad Language  .03 .00 .05 .08 .00 .01 .04 .10 .03 .00 .00 .02 .09 .06  .14* .01 .12 .00 .00 .03 .02 .05 .01 .01 .00 .00 .07 .02  .15* .03 .11 .01 .00 .03 .01 .03 .02 .03 .00 .00 .03 .00  X  X  X  X  .03 .00 .01 .03  .07 .00 .00 .01  .01 .00 .01 .02  .04 .00 .01 .03  N o t e . x - R s q u a r e s c a n n o t be computed. * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l As  shown  regression  in Table  analysis.  40, AOA was p a i r e d w i t h AOA c o r r e l a t e d  s u b j e c t s ' Reading standard scores addition, selected  AOA e n t e r e d to enter  combination predictive  the equation.  of these power  significantly  ( r = -.38,  the equation  LOR f o r t h e  first,  with  p_<.05).  while  LOR was n o t  Furthermore, the  two v a r i a b l e s d i d n o t change t h e  (Rsq remained  unchanged).  In  88 Table  40  Multiple Standard  Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Reading S c o r e s w i t h AOA and LOR  Step  Entered Vari able(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  AOA LOR  .38 .38  .15 .15  .15 .00  5.21* 2.52  5.21 .00  Both  .38  .15  .15  2.52  2.52  Fu11  Equ  Note.  * -  Table  41  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  FCh  level  Mu11 i p 1 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 ' B r o a d Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA and LOR Step  Entered VariableCs)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  AOA LOR  .37 .37  .14 . 14  .14 .00  4.68* 2.31  4.68 .09  Both  .37  . 14  .14  2.31  2.31  Fu 1 1 Equ  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t Table  a t t h e .05  41 p r e s e n t s  level  the r e s u l t s  of the r e g r e s s i o n  analysis  f o r the s u b j e c t s ' Broad  Language s t a n d a r d  with  a n d LOR.  AOA  AOA  equation  first,  equation.  In t h i s c a s e ,  while  LOR was  In a d d i t i o n ,  significant  negative  not s e l e c t e d  the combination  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d correlation  with  Language s t a n d a r d s c o r e s <r = -.37,  scores  a l s o e n t e r e d the  v a r i a b l e s d i d n o t change t h e p r e d i c t i v e remained unchanged).  FCh  t o e n t e r the  of these power  two  either  t h a t AOA  had a  the s u b j e c t s '  p_<.01).  <Rsq  Broad  89 Table analysis  42 p r e s e n t s  the r e s u l t s  f o r the subjects'' Oral  w i t h whether  the c h i l d  Language s t a n d a r d  studied English before  months o f s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h b e f o r e table, Oral  SEB h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t  Language s t a n d a r d  analysis,  SEB e n t e r e d  of the r e g r e s s i o n  (MSEB).  correlation  scores ( r =  As shown with  In t h i s  first,  w h i l e MSEB was n o t  Moreover,  the combination  to enter  of  two v a r i a b l e s d i d n o t change t h e p r e d i c t i v e  (Rsq  Table  remained  42 Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' Oral S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Equ.  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  SEB MSEB  .36 .37  .13 .13  .13 .00  4.60* 2.27  4.60 .08  Both  .37  .13  . 13  2.27  2.27  In o r d e r  by 6%.  p r e d i c t o r s accounted Language.  significant  FCh  t o i n c r e a s e t h e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f AOA a n d SEB,  43, t h e i n c l u s i o n  predictability  Cum. F  t h e .05 l e v e l  t h e y were c o m b i n e d f o r more r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . in Table  Language  Cum. MultR  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t at  Oral  power  unchanged).  Multiple Standard  Full  in this  the s u b j e c t s '  selected these  the equation.  (SEB) and  .36, p_<.05).  the equation  scores  shown  o f AOA h a d i n c r e a s e d t h e  Thus,  the combination  of these  two  f o r 19% o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' v a r i a b i l i t y i n  However,  positive  As  i t s h o u l d be n o t e d  relationship  t h a t SEB h a d a  ( r = .36, p_<.05),  while  90 AOA  had a s i g n i f i c a n t  p_<.05) w i t h Finally,  negative  relationship  s u b j e c t s ' performance  i t s h o u l d be n o t e d  that  i n Oral LOR was  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 . significant  Table  f i n d i n g s were  Cjr = -.30,  Language. combined t o  However,  these  no  obtained.  43  Multiple Standard  Regression A n a l y s i s f o r the S u b j e c t s ' S c o r e s w i t h AOA and SEB  Step  Entered VariableCs)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  SEB AOA  .36 .44  .13 . 19  .13 .06  4.60* 3.45*  4.60 2.12  Both  .44  .19  . 19  3.45*  3.45  Ful 1  Equ.  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t 4.4 ANALYSIS  OF VARIANCE  ANOVA was was  found  a t t h e .05  carried  subtests.  o u t when a s i g n i f i c a n t  = 1.91)  significantly  The r e s u l t s  FCh  (ANOVA) correlation  between a p r e d i c t o r and summary s c o r e .  differed  Language  level  HK-WISC, ANOVA was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e students  Oral  i f male and  on t h e HK V e r b a l  On t h e female Scale  i n d i c a t e d t h a t m a l e s CM = 13.62 &  did significantly  b e t t e r than  SD = 2.73) on t h e S i m i l a r i t i e s  females  subtest,  SD  CM = 11.45 8.  FC 1, 30) =  6.87,  p_< . 01 . On  t h e SB: F E , t h e f o l l o w i n g were  subjects better  CM = 50.71  than  found.  & SD = 8.52) p e r f o r m e d  female s u b j e c t s  First,  male  significantly  CM = 43.18 & SD = 3.97)  on t h e  91  SB  Q u a n t i t a t i v e s u b t e s t , F( 1, 30)  s u b j e c t s with mothers having attainments  (see Table  p e r f o r m a n c e on Comprehension  t h e SB  different  differed  Vocabulary,  s u b t e s t s , £(5,  with mothers having or  44)  26)  i n the  p_<.01.  'Grade 6'  Secondly,  educational  significantly  F ( 5 , 26) = 2.99,  in  = 3.25,  p_<.05.  educational attainment  Technical School' category  with mothers  = 7.64,  p_<.05 and Subjects  i n the  'College  scored highest, while category  scored  their  lowest  those on  both  subtests.  Table  44  S u b j e c t s ' Performance with Regard to Mother's SB: Educational  Attainment  Grade 6 G r a d e s 7-9 G r a d e s 10-11 G r a d e 12/13 College/Technical University  School  FE  Subtest  Vocabulary 28.67a, 41.00 , 36.20 , 35.79 , 43.25 , 38.00 ,  Education  Comprehension  4.04b 2.45 3.96 6.80 3.20 0.00  31.33, 46.80, 43.40, 44.57, 49.50, 38.00,  5.51 5.02 9.02 7.11 3.87 0.00  N o t e , n = 32 a - Mean S c o r e b - Standard Deviation Thirdly, occupations subtest, results  s u b j e c t s with  differed  F ( 3 , 28) indicated  fathers having  s i g n i f i c a n t l y on  = 3.52,  p_<.05.  As  that s u b j e c t s with  professionals scored highest, while salesmen  scored  lowest.  different  t h e SB shown  Bead Memory  in Table  45,  the  f a t h e r s as those with  F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s who  f a t h e r s as 'always'  92 s p e a k C a n t o n e s e a t home CM = 40.00 & SD_ = 4.52) s c o r e d significantly at  lower  than  t h o s e who ' o f t e n ' speak  Cantonese  home CM = 45.95 & SD = 8.41) on t h e SB C o m p r e h e n s i o n  s u b t e s t £ C 1 , 30) = 4.75, p_<.05.  Overall, subjects'  performance d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y father's occupation whether  they  d i f f e r with  r e g a r d t o LOR,  CHK), m o t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n  CCanada), a n d  studied English before.  T a b l e 45 S u b j e c t s ' SB Bead Memory S u b t e s t F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n CCanada)  Scores with  Bead Memory Occupation Professional Managerial Sales Service  Regard t o  Subtest  M  SD  55.29 53.44 40.67 49.50  9.05 7.07 2.52 3.32  N o t e . n = 32  that  Finally,  t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA on t h e WLPB  children  who h a d s t u d i e d E n g l i s h b e f o r e  = 9.03), r e g a r d l e s s o f d u r a t i o n , p e r f o r m e d better  i n Oral  Language t h a n  indicated  CM = 78.72 & SD  significantly  t h o s e who h a d n o t CM. = 68.29 &  SD = 17.93), £ C 1 , 30) = 4.60, p_<.05. performance d i d not d i f f e r with  On t h e c o n t r a r y ,  r e g a r d t o AOA.  their  93  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study,  final  chapter  d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s  makes r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  comments on  the  f o r future research  i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s  English-as-a-second-1anguage To what e x t e n t (AOA)  and  The  present  study  attempted  arrival  i n Canada a f f e c t  that are given  language  their  in their  (L2)? by  a significant (3) A high would  on  positive  nonverbal be  and LOR  and  immigrant  standardized  abilities  children  the b e t t e r t h e i r Therefore,  have  profile  ONE  of the p r e s e n t  and LOR  study  Thus,  have o b t a i n e d e d u c a t i o n performance LOR  was  that  i n Canada and p e r f o r m a n c e  t e s t s s h o u l d be c o r r e l a t e d .  immigrant  s h o u l d be.  IQ m e a s u r e s s h o u l d  t h e E n g l i s h IQ m e a s u r e .  hypothesis  s t u d e n t s ' AOA  t h e two  lower v e r b a l  a p p a r e n t on  first  on  correlation.  DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS The  and p e r f o r m a n c e  t e s t s s h o u l d be c o r r e l a t e d .  (2) S u b j e c t s ' performance  LOR),  on  t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n  s t u d e n t s ' AOA  standardized  the  of  the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses:  ( 1 ) Immigrant  5.1  and  on a s s e s s m e n t  s t u d e n t s ' age  (LOR)  ( L I ) or second  present  children.  immigrant  on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s  language  testing  (ESL)  l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e  performance native  does  of the  on  the  on  longer  i n Canada ( o r  the E n g l i s h measures  and s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e  on  the  94 E n g l i s h m e a s u r e s s h o u l d have s i g n i f i c a n t correlations. hypothesized  On t h e c o n t r a r y , t o lower t h e i r  measure b e c a u s e  positive  an i n c r e a s e  performance  on t h e C h i n e s e  of the lack of enrichment  language development.  Thus,  t h e C h i n e s e measure w o u l d  i n LOR was  i n Chinese  LOR a n d t h e i r  p e r f o r m a n c e on  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  negative  corre1 at i on. With  regard  t o AOA, o l d e r  learners  (who came t o Canada  when t h e y were o l d e r ) were h y p o t h e s i z e d t o p e r f o r m t h a n younger  ones on t h e E n g l i s h m e a s u r e s .  learners usually learners,  had s t u d i e d Chinese  between AOA a n d t h e i r  performance  Children  combination  <HK-WISC) (Yung,  26%.  f o r s u b j e c t s ' Verbal  A l s o , AOA h a d a p o s i t i v e  negative  correlation  positive  younger correlation  Intelligence  1981) i n d i c a t e d  o f AOA a n d LOR w i t h g e n d e r  predictability  than  on t h e C h i n e s e m e a s u r e .  R e s u l t s on t h e Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r for  Since older  longer  t h e r e s h o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t  better  that the  i n c r e a s e d the  performance  correlation,  f i n d i n g s supported the h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g  from  16 t o  w h i l e LOR h a d a  with s u b j e c t s ' performance.  AOA a n d LOR on s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e  Scale  These  the e f f e c t s of  on t h e C h i n e s e IQ  measure. When t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t Edition  Intelligence  ( S B : F E ) was u s e d a s t h e dependent  negatively  Scale: Fourth variable,  AOA was  c o r r e 1 a t e d w i t h s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e , w h i l e LOR  was p o s i t i v e l y  correlated.  The h y p o t h e s i s w i t h r e g a r d t o  95  LOR  was  supported.  obtained education on  Thus,  the  i n Canada,  the E n g l i s h measure. not s u p p o r t e d .  was  AOA  and s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e Comprehension  communicative fluency  Passage Oral  listening  was  Language  AOA  over o l d e r  where y o u n g e r ones  on s u b j e c t s ' the f a c t  (Oyama, AOA  was  identified  younger  This  f i n d i n g may  learners  that  effects  are  more r e l a t e d  performance  Word A t t a c k ,  indicate  that  &  the  communicative  tend to perform b e t t e r  d i d not have  significant  This result  nonverbal performance and LOR.  to verbal  f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t  and performance  as h a v i n g a  than  1978).  and LOR  o f AOA  (WLPB)  correlated with  with subjects'  nonverbal performance.  the  reason  oral  learners in  Battery  (Letter-Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  Comprehension).  older  and  comprehension,  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  negative c o r r e l a t i o n  Overall,  to  Reasoning  involvement of  Language s u b t e s t s a s s e s s c h i l d r e n ' s  skills, the  suggest the  an a d v a n t a g e  subjects'' performance.  Oral  i n SB V e r b a l  between  skills.  1984), LOR  significant  performance  negative c o r r e l a t i o n s  t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y  (Woodcock,  in  their  have  As Oyama (1978) m e n t i o n e d ,  t e n d t o have  communicative  the b e t t e r  such as  and p h o n o l o g y .  learners  On  The  may  skills,  the c h i l d r e n  However, t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g  AOA  Verbal  longer  may  performance.  on E n g l i s h m e a s u r e s .  be  due  i s less sensitive  A p p a r e n t l y , t h e s e two  negative  effects  There  is a  to  variables possible  c o r r e l a t i o n s between T h i s study probably  AOA  96 did  n o t have  significant  l e a r n e r s t h a t were o l d enough t o c a u s e differences  in their  p e r f o r m a n c e on t a s k s t h a t  were u n r e l a t e d t o t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e studies,  older  learners often referred  an AOA o f 14-15 y e a r s  (e.g., Appel,  AOA a n d LOR h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t supported  skills.  t o c h i l d r e n who h a d  1979).  negative  Cummins' ( 1 9 8 1 ) f i n d i n g  In p r e v i o u s  In t h i s  study,  correlation,  which  t h a t LOR d e c r e a s e s  a s AOA  increases.  5.2 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS TWO The According  second  h y p o t h e s i s was o n l y p a r t i a l l y  t o Cummins ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,  cognitive/academic  LI a n d L2 a r e i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . to each o t h e r  and w i l l  c o r r e l a t i o n s with nonverbal  abilities.  hypothesized their  The and  Therefore,  pattern of  such  a s v e r b a l and  the present  study  t h a t s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e i r  SB: F E p e r f o r m a n c e  results  indicated  t h a t s u b j e c t s ' HK-WISC F u l l  SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s c o r e s h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t  the t o t a l  However, t h e i r variability  Scale scores.  correlation  the v a r i a b i l i t y  In f a c t ,  the r e s u l t s  Scale  positive  was low; o n l y 17%  i n s u b j e c t s ' SB T e s t  s c o r e s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Full  (measured i n  in their L2).  correlation. of  variables,  L I ) s h o u l d be p r e d i c t i v e  (measured  aspects of  T h u s , L I a n d L2 a r e r e l a t e d  show a s i m i l a r  other  supported.  Composite  i n s u b j e c t s ' HK  indicated  that  97 s u b j e c t s ' ' HK V e r b a l no  S c a l e a n d SB V e r b a l  Reasoning scores had  correlation. S u b j e c t s ' WLPB summary s c o r e s h a d no c o r r e l a t i o n  t h e HK-WISC S c a l e s c o r e s , w h i l e  t h e s e WLPB s c o r e s h a d  significant p o s i t i v e correlations with scores.  t h e SB: FE summary  These f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e v e r b a l  o f t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: FE m i g h t a l s o be a s s e s s i n g language p r o f i c i e n c y .  with  subtests subjects'  As Johnson (1989) suggested,  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  that  are c o g n i t i v e l y demanding, such a s t a s k s t h a t measure nonverbal  mental  On t h e o t h e r proficiency  hand, v a r i a b l e s t h a t measure  specific  The f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e WLPB summary s c o r e s h a d  correlation with  t h e HK-WISC S c a l e s c o r e s w h i l e  s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations with scores might  repertoire.  i n a l a n g u a g e do n o t e x h i b i t c r o s s - 1 a n g u a g e  correlations. no  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  i n d i c a t e that the verbal  having  t h e SB: FE summary subtests of the  HK-WISC a n d SB: FE w e r e a s s e s s i n g a r e a s more t h a n t h e subjects' verbal regarding verbal  abilities.  I n sum, t h e h y p o t h e s i s  t h e I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f CALP a c r o s s  a r e a s was n o t s u p p o r t e d  in this  Cummins ( 1 9 7 9 ) a n d E k s t r a n d CALP a c r o s s experiential maintain of  I f motivation  an L I ) i s l o w , CALP w i l l  l e a r n i n g L2 ( o r m a i n t a i n i n g  study.  (1978) have m e n t i o n e d  languages does not e x i s t vacuum.  languages i n  that  i n an a f f e c t i v e o r t o l e a r n an L 2 ( o r  n o t be a p p l i e d t o t h e t a s k  LI).  Also, the  98 interdependence hypothesis presupposes adequate exposure to both languages.  The second hypothesis of t h i s study being  p a r t i a l l y supported may be due to the fact that the subjects had different exposure to LI and L2 education.  Thus, these  children probably d i d 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 s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlation  was found.  Thus, this finding supported  Cummins' C1979) claim that LI and L2 w i l l 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 t h i r d hypothesis was that 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 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,  t h i s study hypothesized that the subjects would have this p r o f i l e of performance United States).  on the SB: FE (standardized in the  On the HK-WISC, t h i s p r o f i l e of performance  was not hypothesized to present because the HK-WISC was standardized in Hong Kong, where the subjects migrated from. With t h i s 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 , i t was  99 hypothesized between Thus,  their  there would  performance  be a s m a l l e r d i f f e r e n c e  on n o n v e r b a l  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between  Verbal Scale be  that  Scale  scores  scores  greater  their  v s . SB V e r b a l  v s . Verbal  than v e r b a l  Verbal  Comprehension  (HK P e r f o r m a n c e  Abstract/Visual vs. Nonverbal  Scale  Performance  R e a s o n i n g SAS; HK Factor  t h a n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between  performance  their  scores  would  Nonverbal  v s . SB  Reasoning/Visualization Factor  Scale  scores  scores).  Verbal  Comprehension  R e a s o n i n g SAS (Low A v e r a g e )  Factor  and 3 6 . 1 6 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  scores  On t h e o t h e r  hand,  that  much s m a l l e r The  their  Nonverbal  than t h e i r  (High  Verbal  Factor  Average)  scores Thus,  it  is  d i f f e r e n c e s were  performance d i f f e r e n c e s . Comprehension scores being  and Nonverbal lower t h a n t h e  a n d A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS may be due t o t h e  following. for  performance  f i n d i n g s of the Verbal  Reasoning/Visualization Verbal  Scale  Reasoning/Visualization Factor  ( A v e r a g e ) were 1.28 and 8.97 r e s p e c t i v e l y . apparent  a n d SB  t h e mean  and SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS ( H i g h  and N o n v e r b a l  Scale  ( S l o w L e a r n e r ) were 28.84  d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e Average)  The  hypothesis.  The mean d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t s ' HK V e r b a l ( A v e r a g e ) a n d SB V e r b a l  (HK  Verbal  scores)  R e a s o n i n g SAS; HK P e r f o r m a n c e  findings supported this  measures.  First,  i n Verbal  Sentences subtest  computation.  Since  Comprehension,  s c o r e s were  included  s u b j e c t s ' Memory i n the  the s u b j e c t s had the worst  performance  100  (about  2 standard  subtest,  the  d e v i a t i o n s b e l o w t h e mean) on  inclusion  Comprehension  of  Factor scores.  Reasoning/Visualization, s c o r e s were  these  included.  involved s u b j e c t s ' verbal  their  the  skills,  their  Quantitative  subtest  Nonverbal  s c o r e s had  be the  subtest  subtest  Nonverbal  F a c t o r s c o r e s became  It should  Verbal  l n Nonverbal  Quantitative  A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS,  s k i l l s were r e q u i r e d .  the  Second,  deflated their  subjects' Quantitative  Since  Reasoning/Visualization  scores  this  lower  i n which noted  no  that  highest  than  verbal  their  correlation  Reasoning/Visualization Factor scores  with  (r =  . 70 , p_<. 0 1 ) .  5.4  DISCUSSION OF  5.4.1  Test It  the  a valuable opportunity  behaviors  HK-WISC was  given). and  Observations  was  different  OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS  i n the  given,  were a s s e s s e d  noted  with  the  u s u a l l y gave up  chances  subjects'  two  t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s (one  the  o t h e r when t h e  SB:  FE  when was  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 ,  t a l k a t i v e when t h e  they  and  to observe  in guessing  that  the  p e r f o r m a n c e on behaviors.  C h i n e s e measure was  E n g l i s h m e a s u r e s (SB:  easily the  SB:  and  FE  of  the  than  However, c h i l d who  HK-WISC had  When  take  i t should had  they  FE & WLPB),  were u n w i l l i n g t o  answers.  behaviors the  given.  be  better  just  the  opposite  101  5.4.2 O t h e r S i g n i f i c a n t P r e d i c t i v e  Variables  B e s i d e s AOA a n d LOR, t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i v e were a l s o  identified  subjects'  performance.  mother's education, occupation the  child  t o have s i g n i f i c a n t  e f f e c t s on  These p r e d i c t o r s  father's occupation  include  English  before,  gender,  (HK), f a t h e r ' s  (Canada), mother's occupation studied  variables  (Canada),  and f r e q u e n c y  whether  of speaking  C a n t o n e s e a t home. Gender h a d s i g n i f i c a n t Similarities cases,  a n d SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e  male s u b j e c t s  subjects.  e f f e c t s on s u b j e c t s '  These  subtest  did significantly  f i n d i n g s support  educated t o produce b e t t e r  status  father's occupation  occupation  (Canada), had s i g n i f i c a n t  than  famale  findings  (e.g.,  performance.  i n c l u d i n g mother's  ( C a n a d a & HK), a n d m o t h e r ' s  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e E n g l i s h the claim  In b o t h  that males are  (SES),  education,  r e s u l t s support  better  a n a l y t i c a n d math  Family's socioeconomic  subjects'  scores.  previous  Maccoby & J a c k l i n , 1974) In s u g g e s t i n g  HK  that  c o r r e l a t i o n s with IQ m e a s u r e .  SES a n d IQ s c o r e s  These are related  ( T h o r n d i k e , Hagen, & S a t t l e r , 1 9 8 6 b ) . Subjects  who h a d s t u d i e d  Canada h a d b e t t e r Verbal  performance  R e a s o n i n g , SB V e r b a l  Language.  These  English than  before  t h e y came t o  t h o s e who h a d n o t i n SB  C o m p r e h e n s i o n , a n d WLPB O r a l  f i n d i n g s suggest  l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h when t h e y were  that  c h i l d r e n who  started  In Hong Kong m i g h t have a  102 'head s t a r t ' . that  Thus,  facilitates  they might  their  further  C h i l d r e n who ' o f t e n ' significantly a t home.  have a b a c k g r o u n d learning  in English.  speak C a n t o n e s e  a t home d i d  better  than  t h o s e who ' a l w a y s '  Initially,  this  f i n d i n g seemed t o c o n t r a d i c t  researchers'  ( e . g . , Cummins,  s h o u l d be n o t e d  frequency  measured. poor  that  Thus,  language  in this  i t was d i f f e r e n t  home may p r o v i d e  from  Whether c h i l d r e n  insights  into  their  s p e a k i n g LI  rather  may r e f l e c t society,  Also,  the issue of having a speak L I o r L 2 a t  language  abilities.  than  In a d d i t i o n  a cause  t o these  L2 may be  e x c l u s i v e u s e o f L I i n t h e home  a f a m i l y ' s general  rather  than  a t home was  F o r example, a c h i l d who d o e s n o t s p e a k h i s / h e r having d i f f i c u l t i e s .  Cantonese  However, i t  study, c h i l d r e n  of s p e a k i n g Cantonese  model.  speak  1984) a d v i c e t h a t  a t home may a v o i d p o o r m o d e l s o f E n g l i s h .  parents'  In E n g l i s h  lack of adjustment  of l e a r n i n g  findings,  mother's e d u c a t i o n , and frequency  t o t h e new  difficulties.  the combination  o f LOR,  of s p e a k i n g Cantonese a t  home h a d t h e h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h  the s u b j e c t s ' Verbal  Reasoning  F a c t o r s c o r e s <r =  SAS a n d V e r b a l  .57, p_<.05 i n b o t h  Comprehension  cases).  T h u s , among t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  variables,  m o t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n was t h e most  variable.  As W i l s o n  intellectually children  (1983) s u g g e s t e d ,  trained  SES  important  when m o t h e r s a r e  a n d have h i g h s o c i a l  t e n d t o s c o r e h i g h e r on IQ t e s t s .  status,  their  103 Overall, smaller  the e f f e c t s of these v a r i a b l e s appeared  on s u b j e c t s '  HK-WISC t h a n SB: FE p e r f o r m a n c e .  may be due t o t h e e f f e c t s o f o t h e r familiarity Chinese  t o be  of the Chinese  This  v a r i a b l e s , such as  language and n o v e l t y  of the  IQ measure t o t h e s e c h i l d r e n .  5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY The  present  s t u d y was l i m i t e d i n t e r m s o f sample  types of s u b j e c t s , measures b e i n g First,  and t y p e s of c o g n i t i v e  and language  used.  this  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 .  W i t h a sample s i z e o f 32, a s i n g l e m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s was i m p o s s i b l e stepwise m u l t i p l e  t o compute.  regression  v a r i a b l e s combined By  regression  As a r e s u l t , d i f f e r e n t  analyses  were computed,  i n g r o u p s o f two o r t h r e e ' s  computing d i f f e r e n t m u l t i p l e  important  size,  regression  with  f o r analyses.  analyses,  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 m i g h t  some remain  undetected. Secondly, an  LOR f r o m  Cummins,  the present  .67 y e a r  and  c h i l d r e n who h a d  Previous  studies  communicative  skills  (BICS)  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y (CALP) o f t e n  c h i l d r e n who h a d a l a r g e r r a n g e o f LOR ( e . g . ,  7 years) f o r comparisons. s t u d y may have r e s u l t e d  (e.g.,  1987) on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between  interpersonal  cognitive/academic  involved  involved  t o 3.17 y e a r s .  1984; C o l l i e r s ,  children's basic  sample  The s m a l l e r  i n the f a i l u r e  r a n g e o f LOR  2 to  in this  t o r e p l i c a t e Cummins  104 (1984) and C o l l i e r s ' ' unable at  t o determine  least  (1987) f i n d i n g s . i f in fact  Thus,  immigrant  children  5 y e a r s , on t h e a v e r a g e , t o a p p r o a c h  L2 c o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y Finally,  the only  result,  language p r o f i c i e n c y  obtained.  Moreover,  a 1-month t e s t - r e t e s t  the Wechsler  less  likely.  correlation The f a c t  c h i l d r e n ' s performance subtests.  that  t o have Thus,  t h e HK-WISC a n d SB: F E  t h e WLPB d o e s n o t have  limited  the comparisons  between  between  r e m a i n e d unknown.  children's  o f t h e WLPB In a d d i t i o n ,  Language s t a n d a r d s c o r e s were d e r i v e d  s u b j e c t s ' performance  was  f o r Children-Revised  the c o r r e l a t i o n  and SB V o c a b u l a r y s u b t e s t  mechanics  between  could  t h e SB: F E was c h o s e n  on t h e P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y s u b t e s t  WLPB W r i t t e n  If  on t h e s e , HK-WISC a n d SB: F E  F o r example,  performance  As a  might  t h i s study only  The HK-WISC was l i k e l y  derived scores f o r subtests  the  Scale  findings  d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h t h e SB: F E t h a n WISC-R.  obtaining a high was  since  interval,  Intelligence  (WISC-R) ( W e c h s l e r , 1 9 7 4 ) . greater  because i t  o r l a n g u a g e measure was a v a i l a b l e t o  compare w i t h an E n g l i s h m e a s u r e , d i f f e r e n t  over  (CALP).  IQ measure was u s e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n s .  a Chinese achievement  afford  take  g r a d e norms i n  C h i n e s e s t a n d a r d i z e d measure a v a i l a b l e .  an E n g l i s h  have been  will  t h i s s t u d y h a d t o u s e t h e HK-WISC a s t h e  measure o f s u b j e c t s ' C h i n e s e was  t h i s s t u d y was  of w r i t i n g ) .  in Dictation  from  and P r o o f i n g  ( i . e . , the  I f a measure o f w r i t t e n  expression  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  (being  more c o n s i s t e n t  with  t h e o t h e r WLPB  language  scores). 5.6  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Suggestions f o r future  First,  a larger  findings  scale  of t h i s study.  enough s o t h a t  predictive  the following.  The sample s i z e s h o u l d be regression  analysis  the present  study  f r o m Hong Kong. to other  only  Thus,  ethnic  involved  Chinese  t h e f i n d i n g s may n o t be  children.  Other  researchers from  other  backgrounds.  Third,  i f the present  study  i s t o be r e p l i c a t e d , more  t i m e s h o u l d be a l l o w e d  f o r the t e s t - r e t e s t  the  WISC-R c a n be u s e d  to replace  Lam  (1988) s u g g e s t e d ,  factor-analytic two  c a n be  the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of a l l the  s h o u l d r e p l i c a t e t h i s s t u d y by i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n ethnic  large  variables.  Second,  applicable  Include  i s needed t o r e p l i c a t e t h e  a single multiple  computed t o d e t e r m i n e  children  study  research  i n t e r v a l so that  t h e SB: F E .  As Lee and  t h e HK-WISC a n d WISC-R have  properties;  therefore,  tests should provide higher  Invariant  r e s u l t s from  correlations  (i.e.,  these better  predictabi1ities). Fourth,  the present  from t h e f i n d i n g s find  out whether  study  b a s i c a l l y drew  o f IQ m e a s u r e s . the f i n d i n g s w i l l  It will hold  conclusions  be b e n e f i c i a l t o  f o r a study  that  106  i n v o l v e s achievement and  or  language measures  L2. Finally,  social  f a c t o r s such  as p a r e n t s ' p r e s s u r e  achievement, p a r e n t s '  encouragement  child's motivation  learn  predicting s h o u l d be  their  to  5.7  a  Included  present  assessment  in f u r t h e r s t u d i e s .  with  both  estimate alone.  their of  children.  LI and  their  L2  major  First,  is likely  As M a i d o n a d o - C o l o n  child  lower two  factor  findings, standard of  i t i s essential  t r u e d i s o r d e r s w h i c h w o u l d be  verbal  and  Nonverbal  scores with Verbal  age  ESL  subjects' verbal  (SAS) and  like  SES.  implications for  in a b e t t e r than  L2  in order  to  i n d e e d have  an  by  the  f u n c t i o n i n g i n an  evident  i n the  LI.  (1988) V e r b a l  scores discredit children.  the  children  Reasoning Factor scores  R e a s o n i n g and  scores  factors  t o make  f i n d i n g s that S a t t l e r ' s  nonverbal  these  does  between d e f i c i e n c i e s c a u s e d  and  However,  potential  distinction  Comprehension  in  factors  to r e s u l t  handicap,  Second, the  useful  a s s e s s i n g ESL  educational  and  the  these  (1986) mentioned,  immigrant  and  for  ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-  cognitive/academic  d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an  be  t o measure t h a n  r e s u l t s have two  o f ESL  support,  Therefore,  IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE ( E S L ) CHILDREN The  and  l a n g u a g e may  performance.  f a c t o r s a r e more d i f f i c u l t  L2  i n c h i l d r e n ' s LI  t h e use  B a s e d on  the  provided of  these  present  A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l Reasoning  should provide  nonverbal  a better  abilities  on  the  estimate SB:  FE.  107 5.8 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION In  conclusion,  AOA a n d LOR a r e i m p o r t a n t  variables  f o r ESL i m m i g r a n t ' s v e r b a l  addition,  v a r i a b l e s such as f a m i l y  frequency o f s p e a k i n g Cantonese studied English on  Moreover, across  The profile the  of performance  and h a v i n g  predictions  s u p p o r t e d may be due t o t h e  t o both  languages.  n o n v e r b a l a n d low v e r b a l  on t h e SB: F E .  cumulative data that  T h i s f i n d i n g adds t o  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  profile.  Finally,  If f e a s i b l e ,  immigrant  l n both LI and L2.  a s s e s s ESL immigrant  years of a r r i v a l  children,  even  t o a new c o u n t r y . rather  purposes.  between  Comparisons  academic  assessment  results  because  these c h i l d r e n  The a s s e s s m e n t  child  few  results  f o r placement  continues to  However, a l l t h e  t o be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h  inappropriate  first  these and reassessment  difficulties. need  s h o u l d be  in their  than b e i n g used  r e s u l t s c a n be made i f an immigrant experience  children  S t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s c a n be u s e d  s h o u l d be k e p t on f i l e  caution  status,  t h e h y p o t h e s i s on t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f CALP  p r e s e n t sample h a d a h i g h  assessed  t o make  In  performance.  inadequate exposure  intellectual  to  socioeconomic  a t home, g e n d e r ,  languages b e i n g p a r t i a l l y  children's  performance.  before are also useful  these c h i l d r e n ' s  predictive  labelling  are unacceptable.  extreme  and misplacement of  108  REFERENCES A n d e r s o n , P. L., 8. M o r r i s , P. D. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Use o f t h e Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y w i t h c u l t u r a l l y variant learning-disabled students. Psvcholoav i n t h e S c h o o l s . £ 6 , 130-138. A n a s t a s i , A. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g Company.  <6th e d . ) .  New  A p p e l , R. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The a c q u i s i t i o n of D u t c h bv T u r k i s h and M o r o c c a n c h i l d r e n i n two d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l m o d e l s . 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, Utrecht. B a r o n a , A., 8< B a r o n a , M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A model f o r t h e a s s e s s m e n t 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 r e f e r r e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . In S. H. F r a d d & W. J . T i k u n o f f ( E d s . ) , B i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n and b i l i n g u a l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 183-209). B o s t o n : C o l l e g e - H i l l Press. B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n (1986). C o m p a r i s o n o f 1986/87 and 1985/86 e n r o l l m e n t . f u n d i n g , and c o s t p e r s t u d e n t bv d i s t r i c t and p r o g r a m - 3.30 E n g l i s h - s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . B r o s n a n , F. L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . O v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f low socioecenomic m i n o r i t y students in 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. S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . T h e o r e t i c a l b a s e s of communicative approaches to second language t e a c h i n g t e s t i n g . T o r o n t o : 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 .  and  C a r r o l l , J . B., & S a p o n , S. M. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Modern Language A p t i t u d e T e s t . New Y o r k : 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. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c o r e s on t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IV and W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children-Revised. Psychological Reports. 59. 963-966. C a t t e l l , R. B. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . A b i l i t i e s : T h e i r s t r u c t u r e s , g r o w t h , and a c t i o n . B o s t o n : Houghton M i f f l i n . Chamot, A. U., 8. O ' M a l l e y , J . M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . 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 t o the m a i n s t r e a m . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21. 227-249.  109  Chan, D. W. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e HK-WISC a t 11 age l e v e l s between 5 a n d 15 y e a r s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 52. 482-483. C o l l i e r , V. P. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Age a n d r a t e o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f s e c o n d l a n g u a g e f o r a c a d e m i c p u r p o s e s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 2 1 . 617-641. C o l l i e r , V. P. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . How Long? A s y n t h e s i s o f r e s e a r c h on a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t i n a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 23. 509-531. Cummins, J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f 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 r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and e x p l a n a t o r y h y p o t h e s e s . W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 9, 1-43. Cummins, J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C o g n i t i v e / a c a d e m i c l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y , l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , t h e o p t i m a l age q u e s t i o n , a n d some o t h e r m a t t e r s . W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 9, 1-43. Cummins, J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The e n t r y a n d e x i t e d u c a t i o n . NABE J o u r n a l . 4, 25-59.  fallacy  in bilingual  Cummins, J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Age on a r r i v a l a n d immigrant s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g i n Canada: A r e a s s e s s m e n t . A P P I l e d L i n g u i s t i c s . 11. 132-149. Cummins, J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . B i l i n g u a l i s m a n d s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n : I s s u e s i n assessment and pedagogy. C l e v e d o n , E n g l a n d : Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J . , & S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . B i 1 i n g u a l i s m i n e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : Longman. de V i l l i e r s , J . G., & de V i l l i e r s , P. A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Language a c g u i s l t i o n . C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . D u l a y , H., & B u r t , M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The r e l a t i v e p r o f i c i e n c y o f 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 r o u n d t a b l e on l a n g u a g e s a n d l i n g u i s t i c s 1980: C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 181-200). W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Press. E k s t r a n d , L. H. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S o c i a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l frame f a c t o r s i n L2 l e a r n i n g : C o m p a r a t i v e a s p e c t s . In T. Skutnabb-Kangas ( E d . ) , P a p e r s from the f i r s t N o r d i c c o n f e r e n c e 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 a n d b l c u l t u r a l adaptation. Unpublished 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 S t o c k h o l m , Sweden. E s q u i v e l , G. B, ( 1 9 8 5 ) . B e s t p r a c t i c e s i n t h e 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 . I n A. Thomas & J . G r i m e s ( E d s . ) , Best p r a c t i c e s i n school psychology (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 o f o r a l l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e u s e d bv two r e a d i n g g r o u p s a t t h e second grade l e v e l . Unpublished 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 o f Iowa. G e n e s e e , 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, H o y t , E. B. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . B e s t 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 . I n A. Thomas 8< J . Grimes ( E d s . ) , Best p r a c t i c e s i n school psychology (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 Psychologists. H e a t h , 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 o f l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t . I n S. B. H e a t h ( E d . ) , B e y o n d l a n g u a g e : 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 . H e r n a n d e z - C h a v e z , E. , B u r t , M., 8i D u l a y , H. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . d o m i n a n c e a n d 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_, 4 1 - 5 4 .  Language  Johnson, J . (1989). 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. K r a s h e n , S. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The m o n i t o r model f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n R. C. G l n g r a s ( E d . ) , S e c o n d l a n g u a g e 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 ( p p . 1-26). A r l i n g t o n , T e x a s : CAL P r e s s . L a m b e r t , W. E. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . An o v e r v i e w o f i s s u e s i n i m m e r s i o n 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 o f E d u c a t i o n ( E d . ) , S t u d i e s on i m m e r s i o n 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 .  Ill L a p k i n , S., & S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The use o f E n g l i s h and French c l o z e t e s t s i n a b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n 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 L e a r n i n g . 27. 279-313. L a u , W. C. Y. , 8, L e e , P. L. M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T e c h n i c a l r e p o r t on t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f t h e Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r 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: E d u c a t i o n Department. L e e , P. L. M., & Lam, R. Y. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . C o n f i r m a t o r y 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 K o n g - W e c h s l e r Intelligence Scale for Children. Educational 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. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . C o m p a r i s o n s of t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t : F o u r t h E d i t i o n t o the S-B: L-M and WISC-R w i t h g i f t e d r e f e r r a l s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the Annual C o n f e r e n c e o f 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. L y n n , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The i n t e l l i g e n c e o f the M o n g o l o i d s : 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 t h e o r y . 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. L y n n , R., P a g l i a r i , C , 8> Chan, J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I n t e l l i g e n c e i n Hong Kong m e a s u r e d f o r Spearman's g and the v i s u o s p a t i a l and v e r b a l p r i m a r i e s . I n t e l 1 i g e n c e . 12. 423-433. Maccoby E. E. , 8. J a c k l i n , C. N. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . The p s y c h o l o g y 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 Press.  of  M a c l n t y r e , R. B. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T e c h n i q u e s 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. W o l f g a n g ( 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: G l o b a l p e r s p e c t i v e s (pp. 155-164). T o r o n t o : C. J . H o g r e f e . M a l d o n a d o - C o l o n , E. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A s s e s s m e n t : 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 u d e n t s r e f e r r e d f o r d i s a b i l i t i e s o r d i s o r d e r s . In A. C. W i l l i g & H. F. G r e e n b e r g ( 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 ( p p . 6 9 - 7 7 ) . New Y o r k : A m e r i c a n Library. M c L a u g h l i n , B. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S e c o n d l a n g u a g e 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 . P r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n (2nd e d . ) .  112 Hillsdale,  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 c o n d u c t m a n u a l . S t r a t f o r d , CT: NASP Publications Office. Noyce, R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . R e v i e w o f 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 N i n t h M e n t a l Measurement Y e a r b o o k V o l . I I ( p p . 1765-1766). L i n c o l n , NE: U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a Press. Olmedo, E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T e s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c P s y c h o l o g i s t . 36. 1078-1085.  minorities.  American  O i l e r , J . W., J r . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The l a n g u a g e f a c t o r i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f 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 Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y r o u n d t a b l e on l a n g u a g e s and 1 i n g u i s t i e s 1978 ( p p . 4 1 0 - 4 2 2 ) . W a s h i n g t o n , 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 . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Language t e s t s a t s c h o o l : p r a g m a t i c a p p r o a c h . New Y o r k : Longman.  (Ed.),  A  Ovando, C. J . , & C o l l i e r , V. P. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . B l 1 i n g u a l and ESL c l a s s r o o m s : T e a c h i n g i n m u l t i c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . New Y o r k : McGraw-Hi11. Oyama, S. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The s e n s i t i v e p e r i o d and c o m p r e h e n s i o n s p e e c h . W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m . 16. 1-17.  of  Q u i n n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Review o f 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 N i n t h M e n t a l Measurement Y e a r b o o k V o l . II ( p p . 1767). L i n c o l n , NE: U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a P r e s s . Ramsey, C. A., 8. W r i g h t , E. N. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Age and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 94. 115-121. Raven, J . C., C o u r t , J . H., 8. Raven, J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Manual f o r R a v e n ' s P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s and V o c a b u l a r y S c a l e s ( S e c t i o n 3 ) - S t a n d a r d P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s . London: L e w i s . R o t h l i s b e r g , B. A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o m p a r i n g t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t : F o u r t h E d i t i o n t o the WISC-R: A c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y s t u d y . J o u r n a l of School P s v c h o 1 o g y . 25. 193-196. Samuda, R. J . , 8< C r a w f o r d , D. H. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . T e s t i n g , a s s e s s m e n t , c o u n s e l l i n g , and p l a c e m e n t o f e t h n i c  113 minority students. Toronto: Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies in Education. S a t t l e r , J . M. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . A s s e s s m e n t o f c h i l d r e n ( 3 r d e d . ) . San D i e g o : Jerome M. S a t t l e r . Science 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. S h e p h a r d , L . , & S m i t h , M. L . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p e r c e p t u a l - c o m m u n i c a t 1ve d i s o r d e r s i n C o l o r a d o . B o u l d e r , CO: U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o . S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s , T. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . B i l i n g u a l i s m o r n o t : 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 Matters. S k u t n a b b - K a n g a s , T., & Toukomaa, P. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . T e a c h i n g m i g r a n t c h i l d r e n ' s m o t h e r tongue a n d l e a r n i n g t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e host country i n 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 , & H o e f n a g e l - H o h l e , M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 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 : E v i d e n c e from second language l e a r n i n g . C h i I d D e v e l o p m e n t . 49. 1114-1128. T h o r n d i k e , R. L. , Hagen, E. P., 8. S a t t l e r , J . M. ( 1 9 8 6 a ) . 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 Scale: 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 n g . T h o r n d i k e , R. L. , Hagen, E . P., 8. S a t t l e r , J . M. ( 1 9 8 6 b ) . 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 . T u c k e r , J . A. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . E t h n i c p r o p o r t i o n s i n c l a s s e s f o r t h e l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d : Issues l n nonbiased assessment. J o u r n a l o f 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. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . S t a b i l i t y o f t h e M c C a r t h y S c a l e s o f 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 . P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s . 20, 29-34. V e r n o n , P. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . C h i n e s e i m m i g r a n t s a n d c i t i z e n s i n Canada. New H o r i z o n s . 2 1 . 12-25. W e c h s l e r , D. ( 1 9 4 9 ) . Manual f o r t h e W e c h s l e r 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 A n t o n i o : Psychological Corporation.  114  W e c h s l e r , D. ( 1 9 5 5 ) . Manual f o r t h e W e c h s l e r A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e . San A n t o n i o : P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporat ion. W e c h s l e r , D. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Manual f o r t h e W e c h s l e r P r e s c h o o l and P r i m a r y S c a l e o f I n t e l l i g e n c e . San A n t o n i o : P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i on. W e c h s l e r , D. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Manual f o r t h e W e c h s l e r 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: Psychological Corporation. W e c h s l e r , D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Manual f o r t h e W e c h s l e r 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 A n t o n i o : P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporat ion. W e l l s , C. S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 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 d e v e l o p m e n t a t home and a t s c h o o l . B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l . 5_, 75-89. W i l l i g , A. C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and t h e 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 o v e r v i e w o f 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. G r e e n b e r g ( 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 ( p p . 1 9 1 - 2 0 9 ) . New Y o r k : A m e r i c a n Library. W i l s o n , R. S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The L o u i s v i l l e t w i n Developmental s y n c h r o n i e s in b e h a v i o r . D e v e l o p m e n t . 54, 298-316.  study: Ch11d  Woodcock, R. W. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 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 T e a c h i n g Resources. Woodcock, R. W., & J o h n s o n , M. B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Woodcock-Johnson P s v c h o - E d u c a t i o n a l B a t t e r y . Hingham, MA: T e a c h i n g R e s o u r c e s C o r p o r a t i o n . W r i g h t , P., & S a n t a C r u z , R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . E t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs i n 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. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The Hong K o n g - W e c h s l e r 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) M a n u a l . Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government P r i n t i n g D e p a r t m e n t .  of  115  APPENDIX A Letter The to  enclosed  o b t a i n consent  study.  of  Permission  l e t t e r was  given  t o the p a r e n t s  for their  child's  participation  in order in  this  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n 2125 Main Mai 1 V a n c o u v e r , B.C. V6T 125  117  i J.'A1$ i \ i J * & b - & h % % ns A %  119 Parent  I do child  or  do  not  ( c i r c l e one)  to p a r t i c i p a t e  receipt  of  understand examiner child's  a copy t h a t my  i n the  of  Form  grant  in t h i s p r o j e c t , this  l e t t e r and  child will  child's  individual  Permission  be  school.  results  will  permission and  my  I acknowledge  a l l attachments.  t e s t e d by I also be  for  kept  a  I  qualified  understand  that  my  strictly  confidential . I am completing  this child's this  f o r m on  Name ( p l e a s e p r i n t ) : Signature: Relationship Address: Telephone:  to  child:  parent the  or  legal  child's  g u a r d i a n , and  behalf.  I  am  120  A"  ^ & * *t  $  ? ^ *74- *-  ft * t tt• tXtHy& i" ^ A &Mt'\ ?rt i t . 1\ M A *V ^ - J - - ^ - ^ ^ # M -  " W^  4^  ¥K .  % i  1 2 1  APPSNPIX B Background The  following  i n f o r m a t i o n was  s t u d e n t s ' p a r e n t s , who participate  in this  Information p r o v i d e d by  had p e r m i t t e d  study.  their  the  child  to  immigrant  122 Background  Information  I f you c o n s e n t f o r y o u r c h i l d t o 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 I n f o r m a t i o n . Name o f C h i l d : Date o f B i r t h : Present Year Age  Age:  of A r r i v a l of A r r i v a l  In Canada: i n Canada:  Father's Occupation:  In H.K.: In Canada:  Mother's  In H.K.: In Canada:  Occupation:  F a t h e r / M a l e G u a r d i a n and M o t h e r / F e m a l e G u a r d i a n ' s H i g h e s t E d u c a t i o n a l A t t a i n m e n t ( c h e c k one f o r e a c h c o l u m n ) : Y e a r s of E d u c a t i o n Completed Father/Male Mother/Female Guardian Guardian Up t o G r a d e / P r i m a r y 6 G r a d e 7-9/Form 1-3 G r a d e 10-11/Form 4-5 Grade 12/13 o r Form 6-7 1-3 Y e a r s o f C o l l e g e o r T e c h n i c a l School F o u r Y e a r s o f U n i v e r s i t y o r More Has y o u r c h i l d e v e r been r e f e r r e d f o r e d u c a t i o n a l o r 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 r e a s o n ( 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 school (check one)? Yes No If yes, p l e a s e e x p l a i n : Had y o u r c h i l d r e c e i v e d any e d u c a t i o n c o m i n g t o Canada ( c h e c k o n e ) ? Yes 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 :  i n l e a r n i n g at  in E n g l i s h No years  before months  123  Page  Background  Information  Had y o u r c h i l d r e c e i v e d any e d u c a t i o n i n C h i n e s e c o m i n g t o Canada ( c h e c k o n e ) ? 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  before  Is your one)? If yes, week):  (check  c h i l d r e c e i v i n g any e d u c a t i o n Yes No p l e a s e i n d i c a t e the f r e q u e n c y  What i s t h e home ( c h e c k Never Seldom Often Always  frequency one)?  of your  child  in Chinese  months  (e.g., 2 hours  speaking  per  Cantonese at  2  1 2 4  4- #  :  :  % it-  :  : 4 v#jj-  . . . 2  X.1  A  %  ; m. %  -ft «  % & M )M ti*f) •. (4- )  ;  lUff  -  125  -  i i , i'h H  }  ')\ >X$\ K  126  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  HK-WISC HK-WISC INFO  SIM  ,ftRITH  VOCAB  COMP  DS  PC  PA  BD  OA  COD  MAZ  Verbal: INFO  1.00  .41**  .42** .62** .68** -.02 .40* .25  SIM  .42** 1.00  .22  .46** .50** -.14 .43** .46**.15  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  COMP  .68** .50** .08  .46** 1.00  DS  .02 --.14  .00  -••11  - .11  .02  -.11 .45**.19 - .16  -.02 -.02 -.01 .10 -.16  .08  -.17 -.03 -.24 .12  .07 -.14  1.00 -.11- .27  .25  .10 -.28  .22  .11  .25  .03  .03  1.00 .21  .11  .08  .27  Performance: PC  .40*  .43** .18  .28  .45** -.11 1.00 .16  PA  .25  .45** .15  .25  .19  -.27 .16  BD  .02  .15  .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  MAZ  .01  .08 - .03  - .24  - .14  .22 .03  Note. INFO SIM ARITH VOCAB COMP DS PC PA BD OA COD MAZ * **  .36*  - Information - Similarities - Arithmetic - Vocabulary - Comprehension - D i g i t Span - P i c t u r e Completion - P i c t u r e Arrangement - B l o c k Design - O b j e c t Assembly - Coding - Mazes - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05l e v e l - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01l e v e l  .08 - .04 .27  .22  -.02 1.00 -.08 .00- .08  1.00  APPENDIX P Intercorrelations  o f t h e SB: F E S u b t e s t  Scores  SB: FE SB: FE  VOCAB  COMP  PANALYSIS  VOCAB  1.00  .49**  .36*  COMP  .49**  1.00  PANALYSIS  .36*  MATRICES  QUANT  BMEMORY  SMEMORY  -.04  .10  .16  .62**  .22  .18  .23  .24  .49**  .22  1.00  .23  .25  .29  .52**  --.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  MATRICES  Note. VOCAB COMP PANALYSIS MATRICES QUANT BMEMORY SMEMORY * **  lary -- Vocabu1 Comprehension -  Pattern Analysis Matrices Quantitative Bead Memory Memory for Sentences S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level Significant at the .01 level  128 APPENDIX E Intercorrelations Intercorrelations for  this  study.  of A l l the P r e d i c t i v e o f t h e 19 p r e d i c t o r s  Variables  were  computed  AOA AOA LOR AOC GENDER SCHOOL GRADE FE ME FHKO MHKO FCO MCO SEB MSEB SCB MSCB RC FREQSC FSCH  SIGNIF.  AOC  • LOR  GENDER  SCHOOL  GRADE  FE  FHKO  ME  MHKO  FCO  1.0000 -.4164* . 8633" - . 1836 .0645 .8136** - .0637 .0773 - . 2022 . 2332 -.3632 .0424 - . 1665 . 1582  - .4164* 1 .0000 .0994 - .0083 . 1779 .1191 .0698 . 1569 .0145 - . 1615 . 1347 -.3718 . 2878 . 1220  .8633*' .0994 .0000 . 2056 . 1693 .9565** .0309 .1717 .2132 . 1655 . 3227 . 1600 .0225 . 2409  - . 1836 -.0083 -.2056 1.0000 -.0882 -.1783 - . 1368 .0099 . 1669 -.0892 . 1674 -.0996 .0647 .1193  .0645 . 1779 . 1693 - .0882 1.0000 . 1064 .0657 .0108 . 1968 .0641 .2061 .0975 . 3497 . 2443  .8136" .1191 .9565" -.1783 .1064 1.0000 .0066 .1699 -.2465 .2249 -.3131 -.0760 -.0683 .2077  -.0637 .0698 -.0309 -.1368 .0657 .0066 1.0000 .6212" -.1007 -.3059 .0225 -.1394 .4187* .2347  .0773 .1569 .1717 .0099 .0108 .1699 .6212" 1.0000 -.1729 -.4541* -.0556 -.5523" .6093" .4538*  2022 0145 2132 1669 1968 2465 1007 1729 0000 1437 8355" 3579 1871 321 1  .2332 - . 1615 . 1655 - .0892 .0641 . 2249 -.3059 - . 4541 * . 1437 1 .0000 .0547 .4902* -.4326* -.2814  -.3632 . 1347 -.3227 . 1674 .2061 -.3131 .0225 - .0556 .8355 .0547 1.0000 . 3534 . 2035 . 2480  .4754* -.2538 - . 2314 . 1368  -.2259 -.1055 -.1395 .0088  . . . .  - . 1303 -.2041 - . 1636 -.2468  - . 0 1 14 . 1807 .2704 .2759  .3495 -.3066 -.2883 .1496  -.0247 .2300 .1876 -.0876  .0397 -.2363 .0005 -.0428  2501 1442 2253 0382  -.0316 -.0580 -.2331 - .0556  . 1696 - .0233 . 3542 .0114  LE  SIGNIF.  .01  MCO AOA LOR AOC GENDER SCHOOL GRADE FE ME FHKO MHKO FCO MCO SEB MSEB SCB MSCB RC FREQSC FSCH  SIGNIF.  .0424 - . 3718 - . 1600 -.0996 .0975 - .0760 - . 1394 - . 5523* * . 3579 . 4902* . 3534 1 .0000 -.4742* -.3188 . . . .  LE  1 142 2042 2888 3558  .01  3949 3363 3307 1546  LE  .001  ( 1 -TAILED,  SEB  MSEB  SCB  - . 1665 . 2878 - .0225 .0647 . 3497 - .0683 .4187' .6093* * .1871 -.4326* .2035 -.4742* 1 .0000 .8023"  . 1582 . 1220 . 2409 .1193 . 2443 . 2077 . 2347 .4538* . 321 1 -.2814 .2480 -.3188 .8023* 1.0000  .0100 - . 1325 .0787 - .0945  .4514' -.1644 . 1804 - . 1430  SIGNIF.  PRINTED  IF  A COEFFICIENT  .001  ( 1 -TAILED,  BE COMPUTED)  FREQSC  RC  MSCB  FSCH  .4754' -.2259 . 3949 - . 1303 -.0114 . 3495 - .0247 .0397 .2501 - .0316 . 1696 . 1 142 .0100 .4514'  -.2538 - . 1055 - . 3363 -.2041 . 1807 -.3066 . 2300 - . 2363 - . 1442 -.0580 -.0233 . 2042 - . 1325 -.1644  -  . 2314 . 1395 . 3307 . 1636 . 2704 -.2883 . 1876 .0005 . 2253 -.2331 . 3542 . 2888 .0787 . 1804  . 1368 .0088 . 1546 - . 2468 . 2759 . 1496 -.0876 -.0428 .0382 - .0556 .0114 . 3558 - .0945 -.1430  1.0000 -.0356 .2140 .0347  -.0356 1.0000 .6661' -.0621  .2140 .6661* 1.0000 . 1823  .0347 - .0621 . 1823 1 .0000  0000  LE  CANNOT  "  PRINTED  IF  A COEFFICIENT  CANNOT  BE COMPUTED)  130 APPENDIX F List  of A b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r Appendix E  AOA  — Age  LOR  - Length of Residence  AOC  - Age o f C h i l d  FE  - Father's Education  ME  - Mother's Education  FHKO  - F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n < HK)  MHKO  - M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n <HK)  FCO  - F a t h e r ' s Occupation (Canada)  MCO  - Mother's O c c u p a t i o n (Canada)  SEB  - Whether t h e 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  MSEB  - Months o f S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e  SCB  - Whether t h e C h i l d S t u d i e d C h i n e s e B e f o r e  MSCB  - Months o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e B e f o r e  RC  - Whether t h e C h i l d was R e c e i v i n g E d u c a t i o n i n  on A r r i v a l  Chinese FREQSC  - Frequency of S t u d y i n g Chinese  FSCH  - 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  131 APPENDIX G Results  of A l l the M u l t i p l e Regression  Subjects' I.  Analyses f o r  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e HK-WISC. SB: F E . a n d WLPB  S t a g e 1:  A. HK-WISC ( 1 ) 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 ' HK F u l 1 S e a l e S c o r e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and L e n g t h of R e s i d e n c e (LOR)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOA  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .07  .07  1.01  1.01  .07  .07  1.01  1.01  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  >  .26  Both  .26  LOR Fu11  Equ.  (2) 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 ' S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d LOR Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  >  .32  . 10  Equ. Both  .32  . 10  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOA  HK  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  1 .68  1 .68  .10  1.68  1.68  LOR Full  (3) 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 ' P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d LOR Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOA >  HK  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .14  .02  .02  .28  .28  . 14  .02  .02  .28  .28  LOR Full  Equ. Both  132 ( 4 ) 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 ' HK S c o r e s w i t h Gender and Age o f C h i l d (AOC)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOC Gender  Ful 1  >  Equ. B o t h  1 2 Ful 1  Entered Variable(s) Gender AOC Equ. B o t h  Note . * -  Scale  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .70  .70  .22  .05  .05  .70  .70  ( 5 ) 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 ' HK S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h Gender and AOC Step  Full  Verbal  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .39 .40  .16 . 16  .16 .00  5.52* 2.71  5.52 .08  .40  .16  .16  2.71  2.71  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  FCh  level  ( 6 ) 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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h Gender and AOC Step 1  Entered Variable(s) AOC Gender  Ful 1  >  Equ. B o t h  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .06  .00  .00  .05  .05  .06  .00  .00  .05  .05  ( 7 ) 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 ' HK F u l 1 S e a l e S c o r e s w i t h School1 and G r a d e Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade School  F u l 1 Equ. B o t h  >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 12  .01  .01  .20  .20  .12  .01  .01  .20  .20  133 ( 8 ) 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 ' HK S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l and Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .12  .01  .12  .01  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .21  .21  .01  .21  .21  School Full  Equ. B o t h  ( 9 ) 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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l and Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  ~I  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .07  .00  .00  .07  .07  .07  .00  .00  .07  .07  FCh  Grade > School  Full  Equ. B o t h  (10 ) 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 ' HK S c a l e 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 ( F E ) and E d u c a t i o n (ME) Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .13  .02  .13  .02  Full Mother's  Cum. F  FCh  .02  .23  .23  .02  .23  .23  ME  ~1  > FE Full  Equ.  Both  134 (11)  Step  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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h F E a n d ME Entered Variable(s)  1  ME FE  >  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  1.06  1 .06  .26  .07  .07  1.06  1 .06  Ful 1  Equ.  (12)  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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h F E and ME  Step  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME FE  Ful 1  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .27  .08  .08  1 .18  1 .18  .27  .08  .08  1 .18  1 .18  ( 1 3 ) 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 ' HK F u l 1 S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h F a t h e r 's O c c u p a t i o n i n HK (FHKO) and M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i on i n HK (MHKO) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  Ful 1  Equ.  Both  >  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 19  .04  .04  .54  .54  .19  .04  .04  .54  .54  Cum. Mul tR  135 ( 1 4 ) 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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  .02  .02  .27  .27  .13  .02  .02  .27  .27  Cum. Mul tR  MHKO >  FHKO F u l 1 Equ. (15)  Step  Both  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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .23  .06  .06  .84  .84  .23  .06  .06  .84  .84  MHKO >  FHKO F u l 1 Equ. (16)  Both  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 ' HK F u l l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada ( F C O ) and M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  1  MCO >  .10  .01  Equ. Both  .10  .01  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .14  .14  .01  .14  .14  RsqCh  FCO Full  136 (17)  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 ' HK S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h FCO and MCO  Verbal  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  >  .14  .02  .02  .30  .30  Both  .14  .02  .02  .30  .30  Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  MCO FCO  Ful 1  Equ.  ( 1 8 ) 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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S e a lle S c o r e s w i t h FCO and MCO Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  >  .04  .00  .00  .02  .02  Both  .04  .00  .00  .02  .02  Step  Entered Variable<s)  1  MCO FCO  Ful 1  Equ.  (19)  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 ' HK F u l l S c a l e 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 o f S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e (MSEB)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  >  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  Both  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  FCh  MSEB SEB  Full  Equ.  137 (20)  Step  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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  .01  .01  .14  .14  .10  .01  .01  .14  . 14  Cum. Mul tR  MSEB >  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  Both  <21) 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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e• S c o r e s w i t h SEB and MSEB Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  1  MSEB >  .11  .01  Both  .11  .01  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .16  .16  .01  .16  .16  RsqCh  SEB Full  Equ.  <22) 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 ' HK F u l l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h S t u d i e d C h i n e s e B e f o r e (SCB) a n d Months o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e B e f o r e (MSCB) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .08  .01  .01  . 18  .18  MSCB  .08  .01  .01  . 18  . 18  ( 2 3 ) 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 SubJ e c t s ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .12  .01  .01  .44  .44  MSCB  .12  .01  .01  .44  .44  138 (24) 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 ' HK P e r f o r m a n c e S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Step 1 F u l 1 Equ. (25)  Step 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .04  .00  .00  .06  .06  MSCB  .04  .00  .00  .06  .06  Entered Variable(s)  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 ' HK Fu11 S c a l e Scores with Frequency of Speaking Cantonese at Home ( F S C H ) . R e c e i v i n g E d u c a t i o n i n C h i n e s e ( R C ) . and F r e a u e n c v o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e (FREQSC) Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC /  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .31  .09  .09  .96  .96  .31  .09  .09  .96  .96  ( 2 6 ) 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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h FSCH. RC . a n d FREQSC Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC / Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  .68  .68  .26  .07  .07  .68  .68  ( 2 7 ) 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 ' HK V e r b a l S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h FSCH. RC . a n d FREQSC Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC / Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .41  . 17  .41  .17  Cum. F  FCh  . 17  1 .89  1 .89  .17  1.89  1.89  RsqCh  139  B. SB: FE (1) 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) a n d L e n g t h o f Residence (LOR)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  1  AOA >  .23  .05  .05  .83  .83  Both  .23  .05  .05  .83  .83  LOR F u l 1 Equ.  ( 2 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l 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) w i t h AOA and LOR Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  1  AOA  >  .38  . 14  .14  2.38  2.38  Both  .38  .14  .14  2.38  2.38  LOR Ful 1  Equ.  ( 3 ) 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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA and; LOR Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  1  AOA  >  .31  . 10  Both  .31  . 10  LOR Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  1 .59  1 .59  .10  1 .59  1 .59  RsqCh  140 <4) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA and LOR Step  Entered VariableCs)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  1  AOA  >  .21  .05  .05  .69  .69  Both  .21  .05  .05  .69  .69  Cum. F  FCh  LOR F u l 1 Equ.  (5) 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 ' S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA and LOR Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOA LOR  Full <6>  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  SB  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  . 18  .03  .03  .51  .51  .18  .03  .03  .51  .51  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 ' SB 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 AOA and LOR  Verbal  Step  Entered Variable<s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  1 2  LOR AOA  .35 .38  .13 . 15  . 13 .02  4.27* 2.46  4.27 .70  Both  .38  . 15  . 15  2.46  2.46  Full  Equ.  Note. * <7>  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  leve 1  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA and LOR Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  >  .06  .00  .00  .05  .05  Both  .06  .00  .00  .05  .05  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOA LOR  Full  Equ.  141  ( 8 ) 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 Subjects'" SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Gender and Age o f C h i l d (AOC)  Step 1  Entered VariableCs)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .73  .73  .22  .05  .05  .73  .73  AOC > Gender  Full  Equ. B o t h  (9) 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 ' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Gender and AOC Step 1  Entered VariableCs)  SB  Verbal  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  FCh  AOC > Gender  Full  Equ. B o t h  (10)  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects' V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Gender and AOC  Step 1  Entered VariableCs)  SB  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .23  .05  .05  .82  .82  .23  .05  .05  .82  .82  FCh  AOC > Gender  Full  Equ. B o t h  142  (11)  Step  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Gender and AOC  1 2 Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * ** (12)  Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  Gender AOC  .45 .47  .20 .21  .20 .01  7.64** 4.01*  7.64 .50  Both  .47  .21  .21  4.01*  4.01  Entered Variable(s)  - S i g n i f i c a n t at - S i g n i f i c a n t at  t h e . 05 t h e . 01  level level  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects' S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h Gender and AOC Entered Vari able(s)  1  FCh  SB  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .16  .03  .03  .39  .39  . 16  .03  .03  .39  .39  AOC >  Gender Ful 1  Equ.  (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 ' 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 Gender and AOC  Step  Both  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .11  .01  .01  . 19  . 19  .11  .01  .01  . 19  .19  AOC >  Gender F u l 1 Equ.  Both  143 < 14) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB N o n v e r b a l Reason i ncr/Vi s u a !1 i z a t i on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h Gender and AOC  Step  Entered Variable(s) AOC  1  Gender Ful 1  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  1.05  1.05  .26  .07  .07  1.05  1.05  ( 1 5 ) 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 ' SB C o m p o s i t e s w i t h S c h o o l and Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade School  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 12  .01  .01  .21  .21  . 12  .01  .01  .21  .21  Ful 1  Equ.  (16)  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 ' SB R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h S c h o o l and Grade  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade School  F u l 1 Equ.  Both  >  Test  Verbal  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .11  .01  .01  .19  . 19  .11  .01  .01  . 19  .19  144 (17)  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 ' ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h !S c h o o l and Grade  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade >  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .20  .04  .04  .63  .63  .20  .04  .04  .63  .63  School F u l 1 Equ.  Both  ( 18) 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 SubJ e c t s ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e '.R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h S c h o o l and G r a d e Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .25  .06  .06  .96  .96  .25  .06  .06  .96  .96  School F u l 1 Equ.  Both  ( 1 9 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h S c h o o l and Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .23  .05  .05  .82  .82  .23  .05  .05  .82  .82  School Ful 1  Equ.  Both  (20)  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 SubJ e c t s ' SB V e r b a l Comprehensi on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l and Grade  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .08  .01  .01  .09  .09  .08  .01  .01  .09  .09  School Ful 1  Equ.  Both  145 (21 ) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l and Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Grade School  Ful 1  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 12  .01  .01  .21  .21  .12  .01  .01  .21  .21  ( 2 2 ) M u l t i p l e R e p 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h F a t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n ( F E ) and M o t h e r ' s Education (ME) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME FE  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .15  .02  .02  .31  .31  .15  .02  .02  .31  .31  Ful 1  Equ.  (23)  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 ' SB R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FE and ME  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME FE  Full  Equ.  Both  >  Verbal  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .35  . 12  . 12  1.98  1.98  .35  .12  .12  1.98  1.98  FCh  146 (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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n a SAS w i t h FE and ME  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME >  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .20  .04  .04  .61  .61  .20  .04  .04  .61  .61  FE Ful 1  Equ.  (25)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h :FE and ME  Step  Both  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  . FCh  ME >  .09  .01  .01  .12  .12  .09  .01  .01  .12  .12  FE Full  Equ.  (26)  Multiple Regression A n a l v s i s for Subjects' S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h FE and ME  Step  Both  Entered Variable(s)  1  SB  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .20  .04  .04  .60  .60  .20  .04  .04  .60  .60  FCh  ME > FE  Full  Equ.  (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 ' SB 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 FE and ME  Step  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  ME FE  .37 .38  . 13 .14  Both  .38  .14  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Ful 1  Both  Equ.  Note . * -  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  level  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  .13 .01  4.68* 2.41  4.68 .25  .14  2.41  2.41  147  (28)  Step  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h F E a n d ME Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  >  .22  .05  .05  .72  .72  Both  .22  .05  .05  .72  .72  ME FE  Ful 1  Equ.  (29)  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n HK (FHKO) a n d M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n HK (MHKO)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .76  .76  .22  .05  .05  .76  .76  MHKO  1  > FHKO F u l 1 Equ. (30)  Step 1  Full  Both  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r 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 w i t h FHKO and MHKO Entered Variable(s) MHKO • > FHKO Equ. Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .07  .00  .00  .06  .06  .07  .00  .00  .06  .06  148 (31)  Step  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  F u l 1 Equ. (32)  Step  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .03  .00  .00  .02  .02  .03  .00  .00  .02  .02  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 ' SB Quant i t a t i ve R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  F u l 1 Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .30  .09  .09  1.41  1 .41  .30  .09  .09  1.41  1.41  ( 3 3 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO Step 1 2 Ful 1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  FHKO MHKO  .42 .42  .17 .17  Both  .42  . 17  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e (34)  Step  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 17 .00  6.36* 3.10  6.36 .04  . 17  3.10  3.10  RsqCh  level  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 ' 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 FHKO a n d MHKO Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .19  .04  .04  .53  .53  .19  .04  .04  .53  .53  MHKO > FHKO Full  Equ. Both  149  (35)  Step  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s l s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB N o n v e r b a l Reason i ng/V i s u a 1 Ii z a t i on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  F u l 1 Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .29  .08  .08  1.33  1 .33  .29  .08  .08  1.33  1.33  ( 3 6 ) 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada ( F C O ) and M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  MCO FCO  F u l 1 Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .25  .06  .06  .96  .96  .25  .06  .06  .96  .96  ( 3 7 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FCO a n d MCO Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  1 2  MCO FCO  .37 .43  .14 .19  Both  .43  . 19  Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at t h e  .05  level  Cum. F  FCh  .14 .05  4.73* 3.31  4.73 1 .77  . 19  3.31  3.31  150  (38)  Step  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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FCO and MCO Entered Variable(s)  1  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  >  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  Both  .11  .01  .01  .18  .18  FCh  MCO FCO  Full  Equ.  (39)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FCO and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  >  .16  .03  .03  .38  .38  Both  .16  .03  .03  .38  .38  FCh  MCO FCO  Full  Equ.  (40)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h FCO and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  1 2  FCO MCO  .36 .40  . 13 .16  Both  .40  .16  Ful 1  Equ.  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  level  Cum. F  FCh  . 13 .03  4.47* 2.69  4.47 .92  .16  2.69  2.69  RsqCh  151  (41)  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 " ' 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 FCO and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  1 2  MCO FCO  .39 .40  .15 . 16  Both  .40  . 16  Ful 1  Equ.  Note . # -  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 15 .01  5.40* 2.76  5.40 .25  . 16  2.76  2.76  RsqCh  level  <42) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h FCO and MCO Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  1  MCO  >  .27  .07  .07  1.16  1 .16  Both  .27  .07  .07  1.16  1 .16  FCO Ful 1  Equ.  (43)  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t 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 o f S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e (MSEB)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .18  .03  .03  .49  .49  .18  .03  .03  .49  .49  MSEB > SEB  Full  Equ.  Both  152 (44) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h SEB a n d MSEB  Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F  RsqCh  FCh  .33  .11  .11  1 .78  1 .78  .33  .11  .11  1.78  1.78  MSEB >  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  (45)  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h SEB and MSEB  Step  Both  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .23  .05  .05  .81  .81  .23  .05  .05  .81  .81  MSEB >  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  (46)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h SEB a n d MSEB  Both  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MSEB SEB  F u l 1 Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .28  .08  .08  1 .25  1 .25  .28  .08  .08  1 .25  1 .25  FCh  ( 4 7 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h SEB a n d MSEB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MSEB SEB  F u l 1 Equ.  Both  >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .14  .02  .02  .28  .28  .14  .02  .02  .28  .28  153  (48)  Step  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 ' 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 SEB a n d MSEB  1 2 Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  SEB MSEB  .36 .36  . 13 .13  Both  .36  .13  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e (49)  Step  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 13 .00  4.53* 2.20  4.53 .02  .13  2.20  2.20  level  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l Reason i ng/V i s u a 1i z a t i on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSEB >  .08  .01  .01  .09  .09  .08  .01  .01  .09  .09  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  (50)  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h S t u d i e d C h i n e s e B e f o r e (SCB) a n d Months of S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e B e f o r e (MSCB)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1  Both  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .02  .00  .00  .01  .01  MSCB  .02  .00  .00  .01  .01  (51 ) 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 ' SB R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h SCB and MSCB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .02  .00  .00  .02  .02  MSCB  .02  .00  .00  .02  .02  154  <52) 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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  . 14  .02  .02  .62  .62  MSCB  . 14  .02  .02  .62  .62  <53) 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 ' SB Quant i t a t i ve Reason i ng SAS w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Entered Variable(s)  Step 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  . 19  .04  .04  1.10  1.10  MSCB  . 19  .04  .04  1.10  1.10  Ful 1  Equ.  (54)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  MSCB  .10  .01  MSCB  . 10  .01  Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .31  .31  .01  .31  .31  <55) 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 ' 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 SCB a n d MSCB Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  Cum. Mul tR  1  MSCB  .08  MSCB  .08  Ful 1  Equ. I  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .01  . 19  . 19  .01  .01  . 19  .19  155 ( 5 6 ) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h SCB a n d MSCB Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  MSCB  .02  .00  MSCB  .02  .00  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. F  FCh  .00  .01  .01  .00  .01  .01  Ful 1  Equ.  (57)  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 ' SB T e s t Composites with Frequency of Speaking Cantonese a t Home ( F S C H ) . R e c e i v i n g E d u c a t i o n i n C h i n e s e ( R C ) . a n d F r e q u e n c y o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e (FREQSC)  Step 1  Entered Varlable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .34  .12  .12  1 .22  1 .22  .34  .12  . 12  1 .22  1 .22  FCh  Ful 1  Equ.All  (58)  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FSCH. RC. a n d FREQSC  Step  Three  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  FSCH RC FREQSC  Ful 1  Equ.All  >  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36  .13  .41 .41  N o t e . * - S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.51*  4.51  .17  .04  1 .90  .65  .17  . 17  1 .90  1.90  level  156 (59)  Step 1  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FSCH. RC. a n d FREQSC Entered Variable(s) FREQSCN FSCH > RC/  Ful 1 Equ.All  (60)  Step 1  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .30  .09  .09  .94  .94  .30  .09  .09  .94  .94  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h FSCH. RC. a n d FREQSC Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .13  .02  .02  .17  .17  . 13  .02  .02  . 17  .17  Ful 1  Equ.All  (61)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h FSCH. RC. and FREQSC  Step 1  Three  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  .11  .11  1 .10  1 .10  .32  .11  .11  1 .10  1.10  Ful 1  Equ.All  (62)  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 ' SB V e r b a l Comprehensi on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h FSCH. RC. and FREQSC  Step 1  Ful 1  Three  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  . 12  .12  1 .23  1 .23  .34  .12  .12  1 .23  1 .23  157 (63) 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 FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Entered Variable(s)  Step 1  Full  FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  .66  .66  .26  .07  .07  .66  .66  C. WLPB (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 ' WLPB Oral Language Standard Scores with Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) and Length of Residence (LOR) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  >  .33  .11  .11  1 .71  1 .71  Both  .33  .11  .11  1 .71  1.71  AOA LOR  Full  Equ.  (2) 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 ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with AOA and LOR Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Full  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  AOA LOR  .38 .38  . 15 . 15  Both  .38  .15  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  at the .05 l e v e l  Cum. F  FCh  . 15 .00  5.21* 2.52  5.21 .00  . 15  2.52  2.52  158 <3) 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 AOA a n d LOR  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  .05  .70  .70  .05  .70  .70  RsqCh  >  .22  .05  Both  .22  .05  AOA  Equ.  FCh  Cum. Rsq  LOR Full  Cum. F  Cum. Mul tR  ( 4 ) 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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOAi a n d LOR  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Full  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  AOA LOR  .37 .37  .14 . 14  Both  .37  .14  N o t e . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at t h e  .05  Broad  Cum. F  FCh  . 14 .00  4.68* 2.31  4.68 .09  . 14  2.31  2.31  level  <5) 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 O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h Gender a n d Age o f C h i l d (AOC) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOC Gender  Full  Equ.  Both  >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .25  .06  .06  .94  .94  .25  .06  .06  .94  .94  159 <6) 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 R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h Gender a n d AOC  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOC Gender  Full  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .33  .11  .11  1 .75  1 .75  .33  .11  .11  1 .75  1.75  ( 7 ) 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 Subj 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 Gender a n d AOC Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOC Gender  Full  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  .10  . 10  1 .67  1 .67  .32  . 10  . 10  1.67  1.67  ( 8 ) 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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h Gender a n d AOC Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  AOC Gender  Full  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Broad  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  .12  .12  1 .94  1 .94  .34  . 12  . 12  1 .94  1 .94  ( 9 ) 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 O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l a n d Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  Grade  >  . 14  .02  .02  .27  .27  .14  .02  .02  .27  .27  School Full  Equ.  Both  160  (10)  Step  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 R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l a n d Grade Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .18  .03  .18  .03  Cum. F  FCh  .03  .46  .46  .03  .46  .46  RsqCh  Grade > School  Full  Equ.  Both  (11) 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 S c h o o l a n d Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .07  .01  .07  .01  Cum. F  FCh  .01  .08  .08  .01  .08  .08  RsqCh  Grade > School  Full  Equ.  Both  ( 1 2 ) 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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h S c h o o l a n d Grade Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .18  .03  .18  .03  Broad  Cum. F  FCh  .03  .47  .47  .03  .47  .47  RsqCh  Grade > School  Full  Equ.  Both  161 ( 1 3 ) 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 O r a l 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 ( F E ) and M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME) Step  Entered Vari able(s)  1  ME >  FE F u l 1 Equ.  Both  Cum. Mul t R  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  . 12  .12  1 .94  1 .94  .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 ]R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FE a n d ME Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME >  FE F u l I Equ.  Both  Cum. Mul t R  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 19  .03  .03  .53  .53  .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 L a n g u a g e S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FE and ME Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME >  FE F u l 1 Equ.  Both  Cum. Mul t R  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  . 10  .10  1 .69  1 .69  .32  .10  . 10  1 .69  1.69  162 (16) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Broad Language Standard Scores with FE and ME Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME FE  Full Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .23  .05  .05  .78  .78  .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) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  >  Cum. MultR .05 .05  Full Equ. Both  Cum. Rsq  Cum. RsqCh  F  FCh  .00  .04  .04  .00 .00  .00 .04 .04 (18) Multiple Regression Analysis for Subjects' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with FHKO and MHKO Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  Full Equ. Both  >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .24  .06  .06  .92  .92  .24  .06  .06  .92  .92  163 (19) 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 FHKO a n d MHKO  Step  Entered Varlable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  Ful 1  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .17  .03  .03  .42  .42  . 17  .03  .03  .42  .42  <20) 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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FHKO a n d MHKO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MHKO FHKO  Full  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  Broad  FCh  .18  .03  .03  .49  .49  .18  .03  .03  .49  .49  ( 2 1 ) 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 O r a l 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 O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (FCO) a n d M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  1  MCO >  .22  .05  Equ. Both  .22  .05  Cum. F  FCh  .05  .72  .72  .05  .72  .72  RsqCh  FCO Full  164 ( 2 2 ) 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 R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO a n d MCO Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO FCO  >  Cum. Rsq  .04  .00  .04  .00  Cum. F  FCh  .00  .03  .03  .00  .03  .03  RsqCh  Full  Equ.  (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 L a n g u a g e S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO a n d MCO  Step  Both  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  MCO • > FCO  .15  .02  .02  .34  .34  Both  .15  .02  .02  .34  .34  FCh  Full  Equ.  (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 B r o a d L a n g u a g e S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FCO a n d MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO FCO  Full  Equ.  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .12  .01  .01  .22  .22  .12  .01  .01  .22  .22  165 ( 2 5 ) 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 O r a l 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) a n d M o n t h s o f S t u d y i n g E n g l i s h B e f o r e (MSEB) Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  Cum. Mul t R  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  1 2  SEB MSEB  .36 .37  . 13 .13  Both  .37  .13  F u l 1 Equ.  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t (26)  Step  FCh  .13 .00  4.60* 2.27  4.60 .08  . 13  2.27  2.27  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  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 R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB Entered Variable(s)  1  MSEB SEB  F u l 1 Equ. (27)  Cum. F  >  Both  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .27  .07  .07  1.11  1.11  .27  .07  .07  1.11  1.11  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 L a n g u a g e S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SEB a n d MSEB  Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  MSEB SEB  F u l 1 Equ.  Both  >  Cum. Mul t R  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .30  .09  .09  1 .46  1 .46  .30  .09  .09  1 .46  1.46  166 (28) 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 wi th SEB and MSEB Step  Entered Variable(s) MSEB  1  SEB Ful 1 Equ.  >  Both  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .29  .08  .08  1 .30  1 .30  .29  .08  .08  1.30  1 .30  (29) 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 S t u d i e d Chinese Before (SCB) and Months of Studying Chinese Before (MSCB) Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .17  .03  .03  .86  .86  MSCB  .17  .03  .03  .86  .86  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1 Equ.  (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 ' WLPB Reading Standard Scores with SCB and MSCB Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .27  .07  .07  2.40  2.40  MSCB  .27  .07  .07  2.40  2.40  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1 Equ.  (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 ' WLPB Wr i t t e n Language Standard Scores with SCB and MSCB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1 Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .09  .01  .01  .24  .24  MSCB  .09  .01  .01  .24  .24  16? (32) 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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h SCB a n d MSCB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Broad  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MSCB  .21  .04  .04  1.37  1 .37  MSCB  .21  .04  .04  1 .37  1.37  ( 3 3 ) 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 O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h 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 1 (FSCH). R e c e i v i n g E d u c a t i o n i n C h i n e s e ( R C ) . and F r e q u e n c y o f S t u d y i n g C h i n e s e (FREQSC) Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .23  .05  .05  .52  .52  .23  .05  .05  .52  .52  ( 3 4 ) 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 R e a d i ng S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FSCH. RC. and FREQSC Step 1  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCX FSCH > RC/  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .11  .01  .01  .12  .12  .11  .01  .01  .12  . 12  168  ( 3 5 ) 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 FSCH. RC. a n d FREQSC  Step  Entered Variable(s) FREQSCN FSCH > RC/  1  Ful 1  Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .20  .04  .04  .38  .38  .20  .04  .04  .38  .38  ( 3 6 ) 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 B r o a d Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h FSCH. RC. a n d FREQSC  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  FREQSCN FSCH > RC/  Full  Equ.All  II.  S t a g e 2;  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  A. HK-WISC S i n c e g e n d e r was t h e o n l y 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 i n S t a g e 1, i t was n o t c o m b i n e d w i t h any predictors f o rfurther analyses at t h i s stage. B.  SBtFE  ( 1 ) 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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Length o f R e s i d e n c e (LOR). Mother's E d u c a t i o n ( M E ) , a n d M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) Step 1  Full  Entered Variable(s) MEN LOR > MCO/ Equ. A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .29  .09  .29  .09  Cum. F  FCh  .09  .89  .89  .09  .89  .89  RsqCh  169  (2) 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 ' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and MCO  Step  Entered V a r i able< s>  1 2  MCO LOR ME  Ful 1  Equ.  >  A l l Three  Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t <3>  Step 1  Ful1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  .14  .47 .47 a t t h e .05  SB  Cum. F  FCh  .14  4. 73*  4.73  .22  .08  2.62  1 .49  .22  .22  2.62  2.62  level  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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and MCO Entered Variable(s) MEN LOR > MCO/ Equ. A l l T h r e e  Verbal  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  .12  .12  1 .24  1 .24  .34  .12  . 12  1 .24  1 .24  ( 4 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS wi t h LOR. ME. and MCO Step 1  Ful1  Entered VariableCs) MEN LOR > MCO/ Equ. A l 1 T h r e e  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .08  .01  .01  .07  .07  .08  .01  .01  .07  .07  170 (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 LOR. ME. and MCO Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1 Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  ME\ LOR > MCO/  .29  .08  .08  .85  .85  A l l Three  .29  .08  .08  .85  .85  <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 LOR. ME. and MCO Step  Entered VariableCs)  1 2  MCO LOR ME  Ful 1 Equ.  >  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  . 15  .49 .49  Cum. F  FCh  .15  5.40*  5.40  .24  .09  2.97*  1 .63  .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 <7> 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 MCO Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN LOR > MCO/  .26  .07  .07  .68  .68  A l l Three  .26  .07  .07  .68  .68  Entered Vari able<s)  1  Ful 1 Equ.  171 ( 8 ) 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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Length of R e s i d e n c e (LOR). Mother's E d u c a t i o n (ME), and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  MEN LOR > SEB/ Equ. A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .27  .07  .07  .74  .74  .27  .07  .07  .74  .74  ( 9 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB  Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN LOR > SEB/  .46  .21  .21  2.51  2.51  A l l Three  .46  .21  .21  2.51  2.51  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  Equ.  (10)  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB  Step 1  Full  Entered Variable(s) MEN LOR > SEB/ Equ. A l l T h r e e  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .39  .15  .15  1.65  1.65  .39  .15  .15  1.65  1.65  172 < 11) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB Step 1  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN LOR > SEB/  .14  .02  .02  .20  .20  A l l Three  .14  .02  .02  .20  .20  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  <12) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB  Step  Entered VariableCs)  1  Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN LOR > SEB/  .14  .02  .02  .20  .20  A l l Three  .14  .02  .02  .20  .20  ( 1 3 ) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n AnalI v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l Comprehensi on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  ME LOR SEB  Ful 1  Equ.  >  A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  .13  .49 .49 a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.68*  4.68  .23  .10  2.87  1 .84  .23  .23  2.87  2.87  level  173  (14)  Step  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h LOR. ME. and SEB  1  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  ME\ LOR > SEB/  .23  .05  .05  .50  .50  A l l Three  .23  .05  .05  .50  .50  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  (15) 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h L e n g t h of R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n ( M E ) . and F r e a u e n c v o f Speak i ng C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MEN FSCH > LOR/  F u l 1 Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .38  . 15  .38  .15  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  1 .59  1 .59  . 15  1 .59  1.59  RsqCh  < 16) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. a n d FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 3 Ful 1  FSCH LOR ME Equ.  Note . * -  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36 .50 .57  . 13 .25 .33  .57  .33  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05 l e v e l  Cum. F  FCh  .13 .12 .08  4.51* 4.92* 4.57*  4.51 4.77 3.13  .33  4.57*  4.57  174 (17)  Step  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and FSCH Entered Variable(s) MEN FSCH > LOR/  1  Cum. Rsq  .42  .18  .42  . 18  Cum. F  FCh  . 18  2.02  2.02  .18  2.02  2.02  RsqCh  Ful 1  Equ.  (18)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. ME. and FSCH  Step  Entered Variable<s)  1  Ful 1  A l l Three  Cum. MultR  MEN FSCH > LOR/ Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .11  .01  .01  .12  .12  .11  .01  .01  . 12  . 12  ( 1 9 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h LOR. ME. a n d FSCH Step 1  Ful1  Entered VariableCs) MEN FSCH > LOR/ Equ. A l l T h r e e  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  .11  .11  1.21  1.21  .34  .11  .11  1.21  1.21  175 (20)  Step  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 ' 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. ME. a n d FSCH Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1 2  ME FSCH LOR  Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * -  >  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  . 13  .57  .57  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.68*  4.68  .32  . 19  4.43*  3.86  .32  .32  4.43*  4.43  level  (21 ) 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 SubJ e c t s ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h LOR. ME. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MEN FSCH > LOR/ Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .27  .07  .07  .76  .76  .27  .07  .07  .76  .76  ( 2 2 ) 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 SubJ e c t s ' SB T e s t Composi t e s wi t h L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO). and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e (SEB) Step 1  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MCON LOR > SEB/  .28  .08  .08  .77  .77  A l l Three  .28  .08  .08  .77  .77  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  Equ.  176 (23)  Step  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. and SEB Entered Variable<s)  1 2  MCO LOR SEB  Ful 1  Equ.  Note . # (24)  Step  >  Al1 Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  . 14  .46  .46  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  .14  4.73*  4.73  .21  .07  2.47  1 .29  .21  .21  2.47  2.47  level  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. and SEB Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MCO\ LOR > SEB/  .25  .06  .06  .62  .62  Al1 Three  .25  .06  .06  .62  .62  Entered V a r i able< s )  1  Ful 1  Equ.  (25)  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 ' 33 MCO. and Quantitative R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR.  Step  Entered V a r i able< s )  1  Ful 1  Equ.  SEB  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MCO\ LOR > SEB/  .08  .01  .01  .06  .06  Al1 Three  .08  .01  .01  .06  .06  177  (26)  Step  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. and SEB  1  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MCO\ LOR > SEB/  .28  .08  .08  .80  .80  A l l Three  .28  .08  .08  .80  .80  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  ( 2 7 ) 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 ' 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. MCO. and SEB Step  Entered Variable(s) MCO LOR  1 2  SEB F u l 1 Equ. Note . # (28)  Step  A l l Three  FCh  . 15  5.40*  5.40  .23  .08  2.82  1 .46  .23  .23  2.82  2.82  Cum. Rsq  .39  .15  .48 .48  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  RsqCh  level  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h LOR. MCO. and SEB Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MCO\ LOR > SEB/  .11  .01  .01  .11  .11  A l l Three  .11  .01  .01  .11  .11  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  >  Cum. F  Cum. Mul tR  Equ.  178 (29) 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 . i e c t s SB T e s t Composites w i t h Length of R e s i d e n c e (LOR). Mother' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) . a n d F r e q u e n c y of S p e a k i n g C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) /  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MCO\ FSCH > LOR/ Equ.  Al1 Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .38  .15  .38  .15  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  1 .60  1 .60  .15.  1.60  1 .60  RsqCh  ( 3 0 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO FSCH >  Cum, Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .37  .14  .52 .52  Cum. F  FCh  . 14  4.73*  4.73  .27  . 13  3.45*  2.56  .27  .27  3.45*  3.45  RsqCh  LOR Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * -  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at  t h e .05  level  (31 ) 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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MCO\ FSCH > LOR/ Equ.  A l l Three  Abstract/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .38  .14  .14  1 .57  1 .57  .38  .14  . 14  1 .57  1 .57  179 ( 3 2 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. a n d FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO\ FSCH > LOR/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .09  .01  .01  .07  .07  .09  .01  .01  .07  .07  Ful 1  Equ.  (33)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h LOR. MCO. a n d FSCH  Step  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s)  1  MC0\ FSCH > LOR/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .37  . 13  .13  1 .44  1 .44  .37  .13  .13  1 .44  1 .44  Ful 1  Equ.  (34)  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 ' SB V e r b a l Comprehensi on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h LOR. MCO. and FSCH  Step 1 2  A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s) MCO FSCH LOR  Ful 1  Equ.All  >  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  .15  .51 .51 a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  .15  5.40*  5.40  .26  .11  3.26*  2.00  .26  .26  3.26*  3.26  level  180 (35) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l Reason i na/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 w i t h LOR. MCO. and FSCH  Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  Ful 1  MC0\ FSCH > LOR/ Equ.  Al1 Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  ( 3 6 ) 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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Length of R e s i d e n c e (LOR). S t u d i ed E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . and Freauencv of S p e a k i n g C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  FSCH\ LOR > SEB/ Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .39  .15  .39  . 15  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  1 .67  1 .67  . 15  1.67  1 .67  RsqCh  ( 3 7 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. SEB. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 3 Ful 1  FSCH LOR SEB Equ.  Al1 Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .36 .50 .54  .13 .25 .29  .54  .29  a t t h e .05  level  Cum. F  FCh  .13 . 12 .04  4.51* 4.92* 3.91*  4.51 4.77 1 .67  .29  3.91*  3.91  RsqCh  181  ( 3 8 ) 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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. SEB. a n d FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > SEB/  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .37  . 14  .14  1 .48  1 .48  .37  . 14  .14  1 .48  1.48  Ful 1  Equ.  (39)  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 ' SB Quantitative R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h LOR. SEB. and  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  FSCH\ LOR > SEB/  F u l 1 Equ. (40)  Step 1  Full  Al1 Three  A l l Three  Abstract  FSCH  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  .01  .01  .10  . 10  . 10  .01  .01  .10  .10  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h LOR. SEB. a n d FSCH Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > SEB/ Equ. A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .34  .12  .12  1.23  1.23  .34  .12  .12  1.23  1.23  FCh  182 (41)  Step  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 ' 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. SEB. a n d FSCH Entered Variable(s) SEB FSCH  1 2  >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .36  .13  .54 .54  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.53*  4.53  .29  .16  3.79*  3.10  .29  .29  3.79*  3.79  RsqCh  LOR Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * -  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05 l e v e l  ( 4 2 ) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h LOR. SEB. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > SEB/  1  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  Ful 1  Equ.  (43)  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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Mother' s E d u c a t i o n (ME). Mother's O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO). a n d S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e (SEB)  Step  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  Ful 1  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN MCO > SEB/  .30  .09  .09  .96  .96  Al1 Three  .30  .09  .09  .96  .96  183  (44)  Step  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO SEB >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .37  .14  .14  4.73*  .42  .18  .04  1.99  .67  .42  .18  .18  1.99  1.99  FCh 4.73  ME Full  Equ. A l l Three  Note. # - S i g n i f i c a n t (45)  Step  level  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO. and SEB Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  a t t h e .05  Equ.  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN MCO > SEB/  .38  .14  .14  1 .55  1 .55  A l l Three  .38  . 14  . 14  1 .55  1.55  ( 4 6 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO. and SEB Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  ME\ MCO > SEB/  . 14  .02  .02  .18  . 18  A l l Three  .14  .02  .02  .08  . 18  Entered Variable(s)  1  F u l 1 Equ.  184  < 47) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h ME. MCO. and SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN MCO > SEB/  .29  .08  .08  .86  .86  A l l Three  .29  .08  .08  .86  .86  Ful 1  Equ.  (48)  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 ' 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 ME. MCO. and SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO SEB >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F  FCh  .39  .15  . 15  5.40*  5.40  .45  .20  .05  2.37  .88  .45  .20  .20  2.37  2.37  RsqCh  ME Ful 1  Equ.  Note . # -  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  level  <49) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h ME. MCO. and SEB Step 1  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  MEN MCO > SEB/  .29  .09  .09  .87  .87  A l l Three  .29  .09  .09  .87  .87  Entered Variable(s)  Equ.  185  (50)  Step  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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Mother's E d u c a t i o n (ME). Mother's O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO). 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) Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MCO\ FSCH > ME/ Equ.  Al1 Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  . 12  .12  1 .25  1.25  .34  .12  . 12  1.25  1.25  ( 5 1 ) 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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO. a n d FSCH Step  Entered Variable(s) MCO FSCH  1 2  >  Cum. F  FCh  .14  4.73*  4.73  .24  . 10  3.01tt  2.00  .24  .24  3.01*  3.01  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  .14  .49 .49  ME Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * (52)  Step  S i g n i f i c a n t at  t h e . 05  level  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO . a n d FSCH Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  A l l Three  MCO\ FSCH > ME/ Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .35  .12  .12  1 .30  1 .30  .35  .12  . 12  1 .30  1.30  186 ( 5 3 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MCO. a n d FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO\ FSCH > ME/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .12  .01  .01  . 13  . 13  .12  .01  .01  .13  . 13  Ful 1  Equ.  (54)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memorv SAS w i t h ME. MCO. a n d FSCH  Step  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO\ FSCH > ME/  Cum. Rsq  .37  .13  .37  .13  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  1 .44  1 .44  . 13  1 .44  1 .44  RsqCh  Ful 1  Equ.  (55)  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 ' SB V e r a !1 Comprehensi on F a c t o r S c o r e s w i t h ME. MCO. and FSCH  Step  A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO FSCH ME  Ful 1  Equ.  >  A l l Three  Note• * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  .15  .49 .49 a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  .15  5.40*  5.40  .24  .09  2.98*  1 .65  .24  .24  2.98*  2.98  level  187  (56)  Step  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects' R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n Factor Scores with and FSCH Entered Vari able(s)  1  MCO\ FSCH > ME/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .30  .09  .09  .92  .92  .30  .09  .09  .92  .92  Ful 1  Equ.  (57)  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 ' SB T e s t Composi t e s wi t h M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n ( M E ) . S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e (SEB). and Frequency o f Speaking C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH)  Step  A l l Three  SB N o n v e r a l ME. MCO.  Entered Variable(s)  1  ME\ FSCH > SEB/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .36  . 13  .13  1.38  1 .38  .36  . 13  .13  1 .38  1 .38  Ful 1  Equ.  (58)  Multiple Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. SEB. a n d FSCH  Step  A l l Three  Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1 2  FSCH ME >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36  .13  .50 .50  SB V e r b a l Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.51*  4.51  .25  . 12  3.15*  2,28  .25  .25  3.15*  3.15  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  A l l Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  level  188  ( 5 9 ) 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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. SEB. and FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MEN FSCH > SEB/ Equ.  A l l Three  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .42  . 18  .18  2.03  2.03  .42  .18  .18  2.03  2.03  <60) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l v s li 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. SEB. and FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s) MEN FSCH > SEB/  1  Ful 1  Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .16  .03  .03  .25  .25  . 16  .03  .03  .25  .25  <61) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h ME. SEB. a n d FSCH Step 1  Full  Entered Variable(s) MEN FSCH > SEB/ Equ. A l l T h r e e  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .34  .11  .11  1.18  1.18  .34  .11  .11  1.18  1.18  FCh  189 (62)  Step  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 ' 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 ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Variable(s)  1 2  ME FSCH >  Cum, Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F  RsqCh  FCh  .37  .13  .13  4.68*  4.68  .50  .25  . 12  3.14*  2.18  .50  .25  .25  3.14*  3.14  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * (63)  Step  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05 l e v e l  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h ME. SEB. and FSCH Entered Variable(s)  1  MEN FSCH > SEB/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .31  .09  .09  .98  .98  .31  .09  .09  .98  .98  Ful 1  Equ.  (64)  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e ( S E B ) . and1 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)  Step  A l l Three  Entered Varlable(s)  1  F u l 1 Equ.  MCO\ FSCH > SEB/ A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .35  . 12  .12  1 .29  1 .29  .35  . 12  .12  1 .29  1.29  190 (65)  Step  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Variable(s)  1 2  MCO FSCH >  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  . 14  .49 .49  Cum. F  FCh  .14  4.73*  4.73  .24  . 10  2.89  1 .84  .24  .24  2.89  2.89  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * (66)  Step  A l l Three  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  level  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 ' SB Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h MCO. SEB. a n d FSCH Entered Variable(s)  1  MC0\ FSCH > SEB/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .30  .09  .09  .95  .95  .30  .09  .09  .95  .95  Ful 1  Equ.  (67)  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 ' SB Quantitative R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h MCO. SEB. and FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  A l l Three  Abstract/  MC0\ FSCH > SEB/ Equ.  Al1 Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .10  .01  .01  . 10  .10  .10  .01  .01  . 10  . 10  191  C68) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h MCO. SEB. a n d FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s) MC0\ FSCH > SEB/  1  F u l 1 Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .3?  . 13  .13  1 .44  1 .44  .37  .13  .13  1.44  1.44  <69) 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 ' 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 MCO. SEB. and FSCH Step  Entered Variable<s) MCO FSCH  1 2  SEB Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * (70)  Step  A l l Three  Cum. Rsq  .39  .15  .49 .49  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  5.40*  5.40  .24  .09  2.94  1 .60  .24  .24  2.94  2.94  RsqCh  level  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h MCO. SEB. and FSCH Entered Variable(s) MC0\ FSCH > SEB/  1  Ful 1  >  Cum. MultR  Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  192 ( 7 1 ) 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 ' SB T e s t Composites with Father's Education ( F E ) . Father's O c c u p a t i o n i n Hong Kong (FHKO). a n d F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (FCO) Step  Entered Variable(s) FCO\ FE > FHKO/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  22  ,05  ,05  49  49  22  .05  .05  ,49  49  FCh  Full  Equ. A l l Three  (72)  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h F E . FHKO. a n d FCO  Step 1  Entered Variable(s) FC0\ FE > FHKO/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .20  .04  .04  .38  .38  .20  .04  .04  .38  .38  Full  Equ. A l l Three  (73)  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h F E . FHKO. a n d FCO  Step 1  Full  Entered Variable(s) FC0\ FE > FHKO/ Equ. A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .20  .04  .04  .40  .40  .20  .04  .04  .40  .40  193 (74) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h F E . FHKO. a n d FCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  FCO\ FE > FHKO/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .15  .02  .02  .22  .22  .15  .02  .02  .22  .22  Ful 1  Equ.  (75)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h F E . FHKO. a n d FCO  Step  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  FHKO FE >  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  Cum. F  FCh  .42  .17  . 17  6.36*  6.36  .44  . 19  .02  2.18  .25  .44  . 19  .19  2.18  2.18  RsqCh  FCO Ful 1  Equ.  Note . * (76)  Step  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  level  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n AnalI v s i s f o r 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 F E . FHKO. and FCO Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  A l l Three  FC0\ FE > FHKO/ Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .25  .06  .06  .62  .62  .25  .06  .06  .62  .62  194  (77) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h F E . FHKO. and FCO  Step  Entered Variable(s) FCO\ FE > FHKO/  1  F u l 1 Equ.  A l l Three  Cum. F  FCh  .12  1 .28  1 .28  .12  1.28  1 .28  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .35  .12  .35  .12  ( 7 8 ) 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 ' SB T e s t Composites w i t h Mother' s E d u c a t i o n (ME). Mother's O c c u p a t i o n i n Hong Kong (MHKO). a n d M o t h e r 's O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO) Step  Entered Variable(s) MCO\ MHKO > ME/  1  FCh  .11  1 .17  1 .17  .11  1.17  1 .17  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .33  .11  .33  .11  Ful 1  Equ.  (79)  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MHKO. a n d MCO  Step  A l l Three  Cum. F  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s) MCO MHKO  1 2  ME Ful 1  Equ.  >  A l l Three  Cum. F  FCh  .14  4.73*  4.73  .20  .06  2.28  1 .04  .20  .20  2.28  2.28  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  . 14  .44 .44  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  195  (80)  Step  _  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MHKO. a n d MCO Entered Variable(s)  __  MHKO > ME/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .28  .08  .28  .08  Cum. F  FCh  .08  .81  .81  .08  .81  .81  RsqCh  Full  Equ. A l l Three  (81)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h ME. MHKO. a n d MCO  Step  ~1  Entered Variable(s) MC0\ MHKO > ME/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .29  .08  .29  .08  Cum. F  FCh  .08  .83  .83  .08  .83  .83  RsqCh  Full  Equ. A l l T h r e e  (82)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h ME. MHKO. a n d MCO  _  Step  Entered Variable(s)  __  MHKO > ME/ Full  Equ. A l l T h r e e  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .29  .08  .29  .08  Cum. F  FCh  .08  .86  .86  .08  .86  .86  RsqCh  196  (83)  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 ' 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 ME. MHKO. a n d MCO Entered Variable(s)  Step 1 2  MCO MHKO ME  Ful1  Equ. Al1 Three  Note. * (84)  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  . 15  .45 .45  S i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  .15  5.40*  5.40  .20  .05  2.42  .94  .20  .20  2.42  2.42  level  M u l t i p l e Regression AnalI v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h ME. MHKO. and MCO Entered Variable(s)  Step 1  Ful1  >  Cum. MultR  MCO\ MHKO > ME/ Equ. A l l Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .31  .10  .10  1.01  1.01  .31  .10  .10  1.01  1.01  C. WLPB ( 1 ) 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 O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) a n d S t u d i e d E n g l i s h Before (SEB)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Full  SEB AOA Equ.  Both  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. F  FCh  . 13 .06  4.60* 3.45*  4.60 2.12  .19  3.45*  3.45  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36 .44  .13 . 19  .44  .19  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  19? <2) 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 R e a d i n g S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Full  Equ.  Note. * -  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  AOA SEB  .38 .40  . 15 .16  Both  .40  .16  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 15 .01  5.21* 2.74  5.21 .37  .16  2.74  2.74  RsqCh  leve 1  <3) 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 AOA and SEB Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  SEB >  .32  .11  .11  1 .71  1 .71  Both  .32  .11  .11  1.71  1 .71  AOA Full <4>  Step  Equ.  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 Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA a n d SEB Entered Variable(s)  1 2 Ful 1  Equ.  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  AOA SEB  .37 .42  . 14 . 18  Both  .42  . 18  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  Broad  Cum. F  FCh  .14 .04  4.68* 3.09  4.68 1 .43  .18  3.09  3.09  198  III. A.  Stage  3:  HK-WISC  ( 1 ) 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 Sub.i e c t s ' HK F u l 1 S e a l e S c o r e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA) . L e n g t h o f R e s i dence ( L O R ) . and Gender  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  Gender\ LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .33  .11  .11  1 .13  1.13  .33  .11  .11  1.13  1.13  ( 2 ) 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 ' HK S c a l e S c o r e s w i t h AOA. LOR, and Gender Step 1 2  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .39  . 16  >  .51  Three  .51  Gender LOR AOA  Ful 1  Equ.All  Note . * -  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  . 16  5.52*  5.52  .26  . 10  3.23*  1 .92  .26  .26  3.23*  3.23  RsqCh  level  ( 3 ) 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 ' HK Performance S c a l e Scores with AOA. LOR. and Gender Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Variable(s) GenderX LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .15  .02  .02  .21  .21  .15  .02  .02  .21  .21  199 B.  SB:  FE  CI) 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e CLOR). and Gender  Step 1  Entered VariableCs) GenderN LOR > AOA/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l C2)  Step 1  Full C3)  Step 1  Full  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  . 10  .10  1 .04  1 .04  .32  . 10  .10  1 .04  1.04  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s for Subjects' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and Gender Entered VariableCs) GenderX LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  SB  Verbal  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  .38  .14  .14  1 .54  1 .54  .38  .14  .14  1 .54  1 .54  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Anall 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. and Gender Entered VariableCs)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  Gender\ LOR > AOA/  .35  .12  .35  .12  Equ.All  Three  Cum. F  FCh  .12  1 .28  1 .28  .12  1.28  1.28  RsqCh  200 ( 4 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d Gender  Step  Entered Variable<s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  1 2  Gender LOR  .45  .20  .20  7.64** 7.64  >  .47  .22  .02  2.61  .28  Three  .47  .22  .22  2.61  2.61  FCh  AOA Ful 1  Equ.All  Note. ** - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .01  level  <5) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and Gender  Step 1  Entered Vari able(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  GenderX LOR > AOA/  .19  .04  .04  .36  .36  .19  .04  .04  .36  .36  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  <6) 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 ' 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 AOA. LOR, and Gender Step 1 2  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .35  . 13  >  .38  Three  .38  LOR Gender AOA  Ful 1  Equ.Al1  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.27*  4.27  . 15  .02  1 .60  .35  . 15  . 15  1 .60  1 .60  level  201  (7) 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 ' R e a s o n i n g / V i s u a l i z a t i o n Factor Scores with and Gender  Step 1  Entered Vari able(s) GenderX LOR > AOA/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l (8)  Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  .70  .70  .26  .07  .07  .70  .70  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) , and M o t h e r ' s E d u c a t i o n (ME) Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  Three  MEX AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .23  .05  .23  .05  (9) 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  SB N o n v e r b a l AOA. LOR,  MEX AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  Cum. F  FCh  .05  .53  .53  .05  .53  .53  f o r Subjects' and ME  SB  Verbal  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .49  .24  .24  2.97*  2.9?  .49  .24  .24  2.97*  2.97  a t t h e .05  level  FCh  202 CIO)  Step  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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and ME Entered Variable(s)  1  ME\ AOA > LOR/  Cum. Rsq  .35  . 13  .35  .13  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  1 .34  1 .34  .13  1 .34  1 .34  RsqCh  Ful 1  Equ.All  (11)  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 ' SB LOR. and Quant i t a t i ve Reason i ng SAS w i t h AOA.  Step  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Var i able< s )  1  MEN AOA > LOR/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .24  .06  .06  .58  .58  .24  .06  .06  .58  .58  Equ.All  <12)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and ME  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  ME\ AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  ME  Cum. MultR  Ful 1  Three  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .21  .05  .05  .45  .45  .21  .05  .05  .45  .45  FCh  203 (13)  Step  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 ' 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 AOA. LOR, and ME Entered VariableCs)  1 2  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .37  . 13  >  .51  Three  .51  ME AOA  Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.68*  4.68  .26  .13  3.33tt  2.43  .26  .26  3.33*  3.33  LOR Ful 1  Equ.All  Note . * -  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  level  ( 1 4 ) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA. LOR. and ME Step  Entered Variable<s)  1  ME\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l (15)  Step 1  Ful 1  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  .02  .02  .23  .23  .15  .02  .02  .23  .23  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . and F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Hong Kong (FHKO) Entered Variable(s) FHKOX LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  .10  . 10  1 .03  1 .03  .32  . 10  . 10  1.03  1 .03  204 (16)  Step 1  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 ' SB V e r b a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d FHKO Entered Variable(s) FHKOX LOR > AOA/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .38  . 14  .14  1 .55  1 .55  .38  .14  . 14  1 .55  1.55  Ful 1  Equ.All  (17)  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d FHKO  Step 1  Ful 1  Three  Cum. MultR  Entered Variable(s) FHKOX LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  .10  . 10  1 .03  1 .03  .32  . 10  . 10  1 .03  1 .03  ( 1 8 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reason i ng SAS wi t h AOA. LOR. and Step 1  Entered Variable(s) FHKOX LOR > AOA/  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  FHKO  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  205  (19)  Step  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d FHKO Entered Variable(s)  1 2  (20)  Step  6.36*  6.36  .25  .08  3.11*  1 .40  .25  .25  3.11*  3.11  .42  .17  >  .50  Three  .50  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  level  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n AnalI v s i s f o r 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 AOA. LOR. and FHKO Entered Variable(s)  1 2  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .35  . 13  >  .43  . 19  Three  .43  LOR FHKO AOA  Ful 1  .17  RsqCh  AOA  Note . * -  FCh  Cum. Rsq  FHKO LOR  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  Cum. F  Cum. Mul tR  Equ.A11  Note . * -  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.27*  4.27  .06  2.15  1 .08  .19  2.15  2.15  RsqCh  V  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .19 .05  level  (21 ) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA. LOR. and FHKO Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) FHK0\ LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .25  .06  .06  .60  .60  .25  .06  .06  .60  .60  206 (22)  Step  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) , and F a t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (FCO) Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  FC0\ LOR > AOA/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .34  .12  .12  1 .23  1 .23  .34  . 12  .12  1 .23  1.23  Ful 1  Equ.All  (23)  Multiple Regression Analysis f o r Subjects' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. and FCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  FC0\ LOR > AOA/  Ful 1 Equ.All (24)  Step  _  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Three  Cum. Rsq  .38  .14  .38  .14  Entered Variable(s)  ___  Equ.All  Three  Verbal  Cum. F  FCh  . 14  1 .54  1 .54  . 14  1 .54  1 .54  RsqCh  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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and FCO  LOR > AOA/ Full  Cum. MultR  SB  Abstract/  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  .34  .12  .12  1.26  1.26  .34  .12  .12  1.26  1.26  FCh  207  <25) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and FCO  Step  Entered Variable<s)  1  Ful 1  FCO\ LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  (26) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and FCO  Step  Entered Variable<s)  1 2 3 Ful 1  FCO AOA LOR Equ.All  Note . * -  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .36 .49 .49  .13 .24 .24  .49  .24  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 13 .11 .00  4.47* 4.66* 3.00*  4.47 4.34 .002  .24  3.00*  3.00  RsqCh  level  <27) 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 ' 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 AOA. LOR. and FCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1 2  Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.27*  4.27  .17  .04  1 .95  .82  ..17  . 17  1.95  1 .95  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .35  . 13  >  .42  Three  .42  LOR FCO AOA  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  level  208  (28)  Step  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s f o r Subjects' Reasoning/Visualization Factor Scores with and FCO Entered Var i a b l e ( s )  1  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .32  . 10  .32  . 10  FCO\ LOR > AOA/  SB N o n v e r b a l AOA. LOR,  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  1 .04  1 .04  .10  1.04  1.04  Ful 1  Equ.All  (29)  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 ' SB T e s t Composi t e s wi t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . and M o t h e r ' s O c c u p a t i o n i n Canada (MCO)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Step  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .29  .08  .08  .84  .84  .29  .08  .08  .84  .84  Three  Multiple Regression R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h Entered Variable(s)  .14  4.73*  4.73  .22  .08  2.63  1 .50  .22  .22  2.63  2.63  .37  .14  >  .47  Three  .47 a t t h e .05  Verbal  FCh  RsqCh  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  SB  Cum. F  Cum. Rsq  LOR Equ.All  Analysis for Subjects' AOA. LOR. and MCO  Cum. MultR  MCO AOA  1 2  Ful 1  Cum. Mul tR  MCO\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  (30)  Three  level  209  (31) 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 ' SB V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  MCO\ AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .32  . 10  .32  . 10  Abstract/  Cum. F  FCh  . 10  1 .05  1 .05  .10  1.05  1.05  ( 3 2 ) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Ana l v s i s f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB LOR. and Q u a n t i t a t i v e Reason i ng SAS w i t h AOA.  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MCO\ AOA > LOR/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  Ful 1  Equ.All  (33)  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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Full  Three  MCO  MC0\ AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum, F  .34  .12  .12  1.24  1.24  .34  .12  .12  1.24  1.24  FCh  210 (34)  Step  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 ' 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 AOA. LOR, and MCO Entered Variable(s)  1 2  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .39  .15  >  .49  Three  .49  MCO AOA  Cum. F  FCh  .15  5.40*  5.40  .23  .08  2.88  1 .53  .23  .23  2.88  2.88  LOR F u l 1 Equ.Al1 Note . # -  S i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .05  level  <35) 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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA. LOR. and MCO  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  MC0\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  . 12  .01  .01  .13  .13  .12  .01  .01  .13  .13  (36) 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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on ,A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . and S t u d i e d E n g l i s h B e f o r e• (SEB)  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  SEB\ AOA > LOR/ Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .26  .07  .07  .67  .67  .26  .07  .07  .67  .67  211  (37) 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 R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR,  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  SEB\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 Equ.All (38)  Step  Three  f o r S u b j e c t s ' SB V e r b a l and SEB  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .44  .20  .20  2.27  2.27  .44  .20  .20  2.27  2.27  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 ' SB Visual R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. and SEB Entered Variable(s)  1  SEB\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  Abstract/  Cum. Mul tR  Cum, Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .32  .10  .10  1.07  1 .07  .32  . 10  . 10  1.07  1 .07  ( 3 9 ) 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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  SEB\ AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  .22  .05  .05  .48  .48  ( 4 0 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. and SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  SEB\ AOA > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .21  .04  .04  .43  .43  .21  .04  .04  .43  .43  212 (41)  Step  M u l t i p l e Regression Analvsis f o r Subjects' 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 AOA. LOR, Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36  .13  >  .46  Three  .46  Entered Variable(s) SEB AOA  1 2  SB V e r b a l and SEB Cum. F  FCh  .13  4.53*  4.53  .21  .08  2.56  1 .50  .21  .21  2.56  2.56  LOR Ful 1  Equ.All  Note . # (42)  Step  S i g n i f i c a n t at  Entered Variable(s) SEB\ AOA > LOR/  Ful 1 E q u . A l l  Step 1  Ful 1  .05  level  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA. LOR. and SEB  1  (43)  the  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .07  .00  .00  .05  .05  .07  .00  .00  .05  .05  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 ' SB T e s t C o m p o s i t e s w i t h Age on A r r i v a l (AOA). L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( L O R ) . and F r e q u e n c y o f Speak i ng C a n t o n e s e a t Home (FSCH) Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > AOA/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .38  .15  .38  .15  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  1 .59  1 .59  . 15  1 .59  1 .59  RsqCh  213 (44)  Step  M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l v s i s f o r Subjects' R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d FSCH Entered Variable(s) FSCH LOR AOA  1 2 3  Ful 1 E q u . A l l Note,. * (45)  Step 1  Three  FCh  . 13 . 12 .01  4.51* 4.92* 3.30*  4.51 4.77 .30  .26  3.30*  3.30  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  .36 .50 .51  . 13 .25 .26  .51  .26 .05  Verbal  Cum. F  Cum. Mul tR  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  SB  level  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 ' SB A b s t r a c t / V i s u a l R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. a n d FSCH Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) FSCH\ LOR > AOA/  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .40  .16  .16  1 .81  1 .81  .40  . 16  .16  1.81  1.81  Ful 1  Equ.All  (46)  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 ' SB Q u a n t i t a t i v e R e a s o n i n g SAS w i t h AOA. LOR. and FSCH  Step 1  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > AOA/  Ful 1 Equ.All  Three  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  .22  .05  .05  .47  .47  214 ( 4 7 ) 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 ' SB S h o r t - T e r m Memory SAS w i t h AOA. LOR, and FSCH  Step  Entered Variable(s)  1  Ful 1  FSCHX LOR > AOA/ Equ.Al1  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .35  .12  .12  1 .30  1 .30  .35  .12  .12  1.30  1.30  ( 4 8 ) M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Anall v s i s f o r SubJ 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 AOA. LOR. and FSCH Step  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .35  . 13  >  .49  Three  .49  Entered Variable(s) LOR FSCH  1 2  AOA Ful 1  Equ.Al1  Note . * (49)  Step 1  Ful 1  S i g n i f i c a n t at the  .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.27*  4.27  .24  .11  2.95  2.12  .24  .24  2.95  2.12  RsqCh  level  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 ' SB N o n v e r b a l 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 w i t h AOA. LOR. and FSCH Entered Variable(s) FSCH\ LOR > AOA/ Equ.Al1  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  Cum. F  FCh  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  .22  .05  .05  .49  .49  C. WLPB CI) M u l t i p l e R e p r e s s i o n A n a l v s i s f o rS u b j e c t s ' WLPB O r a l Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h Acre on A r r i v a l (AOA). Lenctth o f R e s i d e n c e (LOR) . a n d S t u d i e d Engl1i sh B e f o r e (SEB) 1  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  1 2  SEB AOA  .36  . 13  .44 .44  >  Cum. F  FCh  . 13  4.60*  4.60  .19  .06  2.25  1 .07  .19  .19  2.25  2.25  LOR Full  Equ.A11  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t (2) M u l t i p l e Standard  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  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 R e a d i n g S c o r e s w i t h AOA. LOR, a n d SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. MultR  Cum. Rsq  RsqCh  1 2  AOA SEB  .38  . 15  .40 .40  LOR Ful 1  Equ.All  >  Three  Note . * - S i g n i f i c a n t at t h e  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  5.21*  5.21  . 16  .01  1 .76  . 18  . 16  . 16  1 .76  1 .76  .05 l e v e l  ( 3 ) 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 AOA. LOR. and SEB Step 1  Ful 1  Entered Var i a b l e ( s ) A0A\ SEB > LOR/ Equ.All  Three  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  .38  .15  .38  .15  Cum. F  FCh  . 15  1 .62  1 .62  .15  1 .62  1.62  RsqCh  216 ( 4 ) 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 B r o a d Language S t a n d a r d S c o r e s w i t h AOA. LOR, and SEB  Step  Entered Variable(s)  Cum. Mul tR  Cum. Rsq  1 2  AOA SEB  .37  . 14  .43 .43  LOR F u l 1 Equ.Al1  >  Three  Note. * - S i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .05  Cum. F  FCh  . 14  4.68*  4.68  .19  .05  2.14  .88  .19  . 19  2.14  2.14  level  RsqCh  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 22 0
China 8 12
Unknown 3 0
Japan 3 0
Russia 2 0
Taiwan 2 0
Colombia 2 0
Poland 2 0
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 12 0
Unknown 9 2
Seattle 4 0
Shenzhen 4 11
Tokyo 3 0
Fort Worth 2 0
Taoyuan 2 0
Saint Petersburg 2 0
Mountain View 2 0
Shanghai 2 0
Beijing 2 1
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