INS NYC 2024 Program

Paper	Paper Session 06 Program Schedule 02/15/2024 02:15 pm - 03:45 pm Room: West Side Ballroom - Salon 3 Paper Session 06: Cultural Neuropsychology Final Abstract #1 Sociodemographic and Linguistic Differences Among Latinx Bilinguals on Testing Lanuage Choice Alice Gavarrete Olvera, Columbia University Medical Center; CUNY Graduate Center & Queens College, New York, United States Iris Strangmann, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States Adam Brickman, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States Jennifer Manly, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States Desiree Byrd, CUNY Graduate Center & Queens College, New York, United States Miguel Arce Renteria, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States Category: Cross Cultural Neuropsychology/ Clinical Cultural Neuroscience Keyword 1: bilingualism/multilingualism Keyword 2: language: second/foreign Keyword 3: multiculturalism Objective: Neuropsychologists are more commonly evaluating bilingual adults, introducing possible confounds related to bilingualism and test performance. Current standards suggest that bilinguals should be tested in their most fluent language. For some bilinguals, it may not be easy to determine which language is their most fluent. Here, we asked bilingual Latinx adults before and after testing to self-report their most fluent language. We then examined differences in sociodemographic and linguistic characteristics among participants whose testing language matched or did not match their self-reported “easiest” language. Participants and Methods: Participants were 601 community-dwelling English-Spanish bilingual Latinx adults from the Offspring Study. Participants self-selected the language they considered most fluent/comfortable for testing. A language history questionnaire assessed first language (L1), age of English acquisition (AoA), daily language usage, proficiencies, and qualitative language judgements (e.g., easiest language for them to speak). Participants were classified as either unmatched English (n=75; tested in English/easiest language Spanish), matched English (n=207; tested in English/easiest language English), and matched Spanish (n=319; tested in Spanish/easiest language Spanish). We examined differences between the matched and unmatched groups on age, education, parents’ education, immigration, and aspects of bilingualism. Results: The unmatched group was younger (M=53.11[9.88]) with more years of education (M=14.42[2.57]) than the matched Spanish group (M_age=57.82[9.71]; M_edu=12.49[3.19]) but did not differ from the matched English group (M_age=50.77[10.19]; M_edu=14.82[2.22]; η²_age=0.10, [0.06, 1.00]; η²_edu= 0.14, [0.10, 1.00]). The unmatched group had greater Spanish proficiency (M=6.55[0.72]) and parents with fewer years of education (M=7.04[4.03]) than the matched English group (M_{parent’s edu}=8.84[4.03]; M_Spanish=5.38[1.45]) but did not differ from the matched Spanish group (M_{parent’s edu}=5.84[3.94]; M_Spanish=6.68[0.80]; η²_{parent’s edu}=0.11, [0.07, 1.00]; η²_Spanish=0.25, [0.20, 1.00]). The unmatched group had greater English proficiency (M=5.83[1.06]) and younger AoA (M=16.03[8.38]) than the matched Spanish group (M_English=4.33[1.51]; M_AoA=24.70[12.67]; but less English proficiency and older AoA than the matched English group (M_English=6.62[0.74]; M_AoA=7.09[5.02]; η²_English=0.38, [0.33, 1.00]); η²_AoA= 0.40, [0.35, 1.00]). The unmatched and matched Spanish groups were more likely to be immigrants (95%_Unmatched; 98%_{Matched Spanish}) and have Spanish as their L1 (96%_Unmatched; 97%_{Matched Spanish}) than the matched English group (34%_immigrant, 71%_{Spanish L1}). The unmatched group (87%) were more likely to use both languages daily than the matched groups (72%_{Matched English}, 71%_{Matched Spanish}). Conclusions: Among a community-based cohort of bilingual Latinx adults, 12% chose to be tested in a language that differed from the language that they identified as easiest after testing. Our results suggest that Latinx bilinguals who chose to be tested in English but then self-reported Spanish as their easiest language were more likely to use both languages daily compared to the other bilingual groups. While those matched to English were more likely to have acquired English during childhood, and those matched to Spanish acquired English in adulthood, the unmatched group acquired it as teenagers and had English proficiency levels in between the other bilingual groups. Findings suggest that the unmatched group had a unique linguistic and sociodemographic identity with some features overlapping with the matched groups. Future research should explore the influence of testing language choice and linguistic identity on cognitive performance among bilingual adults.

Paper

02/15/2024
02:15 pm - 03:45 pm
Room: West Side Ballroom - Salon 3

Paper Session 06: Cultural Neuropsychology

Final Abstract #1

Sociodemographic and Linguistic Differences Among Latinx Bilinguals on Testing Lanuage Choice

Alice Gavarrete Olvera, Columbia University Medical Center; CUNY Graduate Center & Queens College, New York, United States
Iris Strangmann, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
Adam Brickman, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
Jennifer Manly, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
Desiree Byrd, CUNY Graduate Center & Queens College, New York, United States
Miguel Arce Renteria, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States

Category: Cross Cultural Neuropsychology/ Clinical Cultural Neuroscience

Keyword 1: bilingualism/multilingualism
Keyword 2: language: second/foreign
Keyword 3: multiculturalism

Objective:

Neuropsychologists are more commonly evaluating bilingual adults, introducing possible confounds related to bilingualism and test performance. Current standards suggest that bilinguals should be tested in their most fluent language. For some bilinguals, it may not be easy to determine which language is their most fluent. Here, we asked bilingual Latinx adults before and after testing to self-report their most fluent language. We then examined differences in sociodemographic and linguistic characteristics among participants whose testing language matched or did not match their self-reported “easiest” language.

Participants and Methods:

Participants were 601 community-dwelling English-Spanish bilingual Latinx adults from the Offspring Study. Participants self-selected the language they considered most fluent/comfortable for testing. A language history questionnaire assessed first language (L1), age of English acquisition (AoA), daily language usage, proficiencies, and qualitative language judgements (e.g., easiest language for them to speak). Participants were classified as either unmatched English (n=75; tested in English/easiest language Spanish), matched English (n=207; tested in English/easiest language English), and matched Spanish (n=319; tested in Spanish/easiest language Spanish). We examined differences between the matched and unmatched groups on age, education, parents’ education, immigration, and aspects of bilingualism.

Results:

The unmatched group was younger (M=53.11[9.88]) with more years of education (M=14.42[2.57]) than the matched Spanish group (M_age=57.82[9.71]; M_edu=12.49[3.19]) but did not differ from the matched English group (M_age=50.77[10.19]; M_edu=14.82[2.22]; η²_age=0.10, [0.06, 1.00]; η²_edu= 0.14, [0.10, 1.00]). The unmatched group had greater Spanish proficiency (M=6.55[0.72]) and parents with fewer years of education (M=7.04[4.03]) than the matched English group (M_{parent’s edu}=8.84[4.03]; M_Spanish=5.38[1.45]) but did not differ from the matched Spanish group (M_{parent’s edu}=5.84[3.94]; M_Spanish=6.68[0.80]; η²_{parent’s edu}=0.11, [0.07, 1.00]; η²_Spanish=0.25, [0.20, 1.00]). The unmatched group had greater English proficiency (M=5.83[1.06]) and younger AoA (M=16.03[8.38]) than the matched Spanish group (M_English=4.33[1.51]; M_AoA=24.70[12.67]; but less English proficiency and older AoA than the matched English group (M_English=6.62[0.74]; M_AoA=7.09[5.02]; η²_English=0.38, [0.33, 1.00]); η²_AoA= 0.40, [0.35, 1.00]). The unmatched and matched Spanish groups were more likely to be immigrants (95%_Unmatched; 98%_{Matched Spanish}) and have Spanish as their L1 (96%_Unmatched; 97%_{Matched Spanish}) than the matched English group (34%_immigrant, 71%_{Spanish L1}). The unmatched group (87%) were more likely to use both languages daily than the matched groups (72%_{Matched English}, 71%_{Matched Spanish}).

Conclusions:

Among a community-based cohort of bilingual Latinx adults, 12% chose to be tested in a language that differed from the language that they identified as easiest after testing. Our results suggest that Latinx bilinguals who chose to be tested in English but then self-reported Spanish as their easiest language were more likely to use both languages daily compared to the other bilingual groups. While those matched to English were more likely to have acquired English during childhood, and those matched to Spanish acquired English in adulthood, the unmatched group acquired it as teenagers and had English proficiency levels in between the other bilingual groups. Findings suggest that the unmatched group had a unique linguistic and sociodemographic identity with some features overlapping with the matched groups. Future research should explore the influence of testing language choice and linguistic identity on cognitive performance among bilingual adults.