By Carl Romstad
Guest Author
August, 30 2024
Since I began my work as a school psychologist in 2012, testing has been a significant part of my job. I had always been aware that the standardized tests we use had a level of cultural bias to them, favoring some groups over others. This truth was something I, like many other school psychologists, simply accepted. When I investigated to learn more, I was told the solution was in nonverbal assessments as they were culture-fair. The bias nature of assessments is language based, I was told. Remove language and the problem is solved.
After working for years with disenfranchised youth, Hmong-American students specifically, I noticed a trend in their cognitive assessment performance. This group seemed to do well on tasks which were lower in abstract demand and higher in more contextual variables. More simply put, subtests that required complex pattern recognition and deeper concept formation (formal reasoning) posed an uneven challenge to this group. In contrast, they did much better on tasks that were more concrete, contextual, and much lower abstract demand.
After noticing this, I began to seek an explanation, looking for the ‘why,’ behind it all. After reading and researching across sources and disciplines (Political Science, ELL, Sociology, Anthropology) I discovered that a person’s abstract and conceptual thinking and problem solving (formal reasoning abilities) is heavily influenced by culture. I also discovered that the foundation of nearly every cognitive assessment and/or assessments of cognitive processes, verbal or nonverbal, was the measure of these formal reasoning abilities.
This personal discovery answered the larger question I had: Why did some groups perform poorly on purportedly culture-free, nonverbal assessments of cognition? It was/is because the true bias is not in language or item familiarity, but in the formal nature and abstract demand of the test.
In 2018, I shared this discovery with Dr. Milton ‘Milt’ Dehn and his wife Paula, of Schoolhouse Educational Services. I had also proposed the hypothetical creation of an assessment of contextual reasoning. We came to an agreement and began work together on the creation of the Assessment of Nonverbal Contextual Reasoning (ANCR). Starting in 2019, I have presented data related to group performance on the ANCR across the United States. Attendees to these presentations ranged from young to old, and students to practicing school psychologists to university instructors.
Across the many ages and titles in my audiences, the four most common responses to this information were:
• School psychologists were aware of the trends I was sharing in my own research and had seen similar trends in their work, as well.
• School psychologists have felt, with certainty, that a missing piece of the assessment puzzle existed. Logic supported the idea that if an examinee did not do well on a measure of formal fluid reasoning, they very well may do well on a measure of a construct in direct contrast, which ended up being contextual reasoning.
• School psychologists wanted an assessment that did not require an explanation or apology before examinee results were shared. More specifically, they did not want to have a conversational asterix or have to include the caveat that the test may not be an accurate representation of a child’s functioning due to cultural factors. This negating of results seemed to defeat the purpose of testing.
• And, finally, the school psychologists who were from disenfranchised cultural groups nodded their heads in the affirmative when they heard about this construct and this tool. One once even shared that she was ‘relieved’ someone finally did this work. She also shared that her ethic group was not “less intelligent,…we just have different priorities and methods related to problems solving.”
It relieves me that we have made it this far. It also relieves me that our data is showing true balance related to problem solving across ethnic groups and cultures. We have more work to do, but we are going in the right direction.
About Carl Romstad
Carl Romstad is a licensed school psychologist and special education director in the state of Minnesota. He has worked for over ten years as a practicing school psychologist and for five years as a practicing special education director in the Twin Cities metro area and south eastern Minnesota. Carl currently works as an assessment specialist for Great Lakes Neurobehavioral Center in Eagan, Minnesota. Outside of his work, Carl has co-published/co-researched with professionals at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, regarding issues in diversity and special education, has consulted with and trained professionals through the Minnesota Department of Education, and has co-researched and developed new methods of assessing problem solving and reasoning in our disenfranchised population of students and clients in the public education and clinical settings.