A multistate survey of 859 school psychologists who indicated prior experience conducting bilingual psycho-educational assessment found that over half had used interpreters. Seventy-seven percent of the school psychologists who reported using interpreters had received no or very little training to do so. Only 37% of the school psychologists reported that their interpreter had received formal training. In only 7% of the cases reported were both school psychologists and interpreters trained in the interpretation process.

This study identified school psychologists' language proficiency assessment practices with bilingual and/or limited-English-proficient students. The sample consisted of 859 school psychologists who had prior experience conducting bilingual psychoeducational evaluations. The results of the survey indicated that 62% of school psychologists usually conduct their own language proficiency assessment, while 38% primarily or only use other district or outside sources in this area. The Language Assessment Scale (LAS) was the most frequently used instrument by outside sources. Approximately 46% of the school psychologists reported that the language proficiency information they obtained from outside sources was more than six months old. Several concerns pertaining to primarily or only using outside sources to obtain language proficiency data are discussed. With respect to school psychologists who conduct their own language proficiency assessment, the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised were the instruments most frequently used in Spanish and English, respectively. Fifty percent of the school psychologists who have conducted bilingual psychoeducational assessments reported that they had used nonstandardized means to assess language proficiency. The most frequently cited method of informal language proficiency assessment was obtaining a language sample or conducting a student interview. An evaluation of school psychologists' language proficiency is provided.

The purpose of this investigation was to develop and pilot-test maze-like semantic maps for assessing reading comprehension of content-area information. Semantic map tests reflect students' understanding of relationships among key passage concepts, as an integrated whole. The production, administration, and scoring of semantic map-tests was standardized, using undergraduate college students in education. Next, inter-scorer reliability, scaling and interpretation of four types of map-scores were investigated. The scores were also validated against three criteria: standardized test scores, science report card grades, and teacher ratings. These psychometric properties were investigated through pilot-testing with a heterogeneous group of 144 Grade 7 and 8 students in a low-achieving school. Results showed that good quality maps could be produced and scored with high reliability among preservice teachers. Criterion related validity based on a standardized test was weak, but moderate-to-strong validity was obtained against criteria of teacher ratings and science grades. Interestingly, teacher ratings and science grades supported different types of map-test scores. Semantic map tests merit further research, with emphasis in three areas: (a) retest and alternate form reliabilities, (b) relative sensitivity to background knowledge versus text-based knowledge, (c) usefulness in an instructional context.