Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T07:19:08.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2019

Margarita Kaushanskaya ,
Henrike K. Blumenfeld Open the ORCID record for Henrike K. Blumenfeld [Opens in a new window]  and
Viorica Marian
Margarita Kaushanskaya*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Henrike K. Blumenfeld
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Viorica Marian
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Author for correspondence: Margarita Kaushanskaya, E-mail: kaushanskaya@wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) is a validated questionnaire tool for collecting self-reported proficiency and experience data from bilingual and multilingual speakers ages 14 to 80. It is available in over 20 languages, and can be administered in a digital, paper-and-pencil, and oral interview format. The LEAP-Q is used by researchers across various disciplines (Psychology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, Education, Communication Sciences & Disorders, etc.) to provide a comprehensive description of their bilingual participants, to substantiate a division of bilinguals into groups (e.g., early vs. late bilinguals), and to screen participants for adequate or threshold levels of language proficiency. Best practices for using the LEAP-Q include administration of the full questionnaire, consideration of acquisition and history of language use together with self-ratings of proficiency, and supplementation of self-reported data with objective language measures whenever possible. The LEAP-Q can be downloaded at no cost at https://bilingualism.northwestern.edu/leapq/.

Keywords

LEAP-Qquestionnaireself-reportvalidation

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , November 2020 , pp. 945 - 950
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, JA, Mak, L, Chahi, AK and Bialystok, E (2018) The language and social background questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavior Research Methods 50, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, AI, Ghazi-Saidi, L and Adrover-Roig, D (2015) Interference control in elderly bilinguals: Appearances can be misleading. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 37, 455–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, P, Damjanovic, L, Burnand, J and Bylund, E (2015) Learning to think in a second language: Effects of proficiency and length of exposure in English learners of German. The Modern Language Journal 99(S1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolotti, J and Marian, V (2012) Language learning and control in monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognitive Science 36, 1129–1147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedore, LM, Peña, ED, Summers, CL, Boerger, KM, Resendiz, MD, Greene, K, Bohman, TM and Gillam, RB (2012) The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(03), 616–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenfeld, HK, Bobb, SC and Marian, V (2016) The role of language proficiency, cognate status, and word frequency in assessment of verbal fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 18 (2), 190–201. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2015.1081288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, HK, Schroeder, SR, Bobb, SC, Freeman, MR and Marian, V (2016) Auditory word recognition across the lifespan: Links between linguistic and non-linguistic inhibitory control in bilinguals and monolinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6, 1/2, 119–146. doi 10.1075/lab.14030.bluCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, HK, Quinzon, SJR, Alsol, C and Riera, SA (2017) Predictors of successful learning in multilingual older adults acquiring a majority language. Frontiers in Communication. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2017.00023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, M, Recio, G and Jacobs, AM (2011) The time course of emotion effects in first and second language processing: A cross-cultural REP study with German-Spanish bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 2:351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAnda, S, Bosch, L, Poulin-Dubois, D, Zesiger, P and Friend, M (2016) The Language Exposure Assessment Tool: Quantifying language exposure in infants and children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 59, 1346–1356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimitropoulou, M, Duñabeitia, JA, Carreiras, M (2011) Masked translation priming effects with low proficient bilinguals. Memory & Cognition 39, 260–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, AL and Tree, JEF (2009) A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(03), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettlinger, M, Morgan-Short, K, Faretta-Sudenberg, M and Wong, PCM (2015) The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science 40, 1–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Faroqi-Shah, Y and Waked, AN (2010) Grammatical category dissociation in multilingual aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 27, 181–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garbin, G, Costa, A, Sanjuan, A, Forn, C, Rodriguez-Pujadas, A, Venura, N, Belloch, V, Hernandez, M and Avila, C (2011) Neural bases of language switching in high and early proficient bilinguals. Brain and Language 119, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, TH, Weissberger, GH, Runnqvist, E, Montoya, RI and Cera, CM (2012) Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A multi-lingual naming test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(3), 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hespos, S and Piccin, TB (2009) To generalize or not to generalize: spatial categories are influenced by physical attributes and language. Developmental Science 12, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krizman, J, Marian, V, Shook, A, Skoe, E and Kraus, N (2012) Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. PNAS 109, 7877–7881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krizman, J, Skoe, E, Marian, V and Kraus, N (2014) Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: Evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain and Language 128, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, MK, Torres, C, Travis, K, Brown, TT, Hagler, D Jr., Dale, AM, Elman, J, Halgren, E (2011) Language proficiency modulates the recruitment of non-classical language areas in bilinguals. PLOS One 6(3): e18240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, P, Sepanski, S and Zhao, X (2006) Language history questionnaires: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods 38, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, P, Zhang, F, Tsai, E and Puls, B (2014) Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17, 673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, MR and Titone, DA (2009) Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 35, 381–390.Google ScholarPubMed
Lidji, P, Palmer, C, Peretz, I and Morningstar, M (2011) Listeners feel the beat: Entrainment to English and French rhythms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18, 1035–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luk, G and Bialystok, E (2013) Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25(5), 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V, Chabal, S, Bartolotti, J, Bradley, K and Hernandez, AE (2014) Differential recruitment of executive control regions during phonological competition in monolinguals and bilinguals. Brain and Language 139, 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V, Blumenfeld, HK and Kaushanskaya, M (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, CD, Strijers, K, Santesteban, M, Escera, C, Hartsuiker, RJ and Costa, A (2013) The impact of early bilingualism on controlling a language learned late: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology 4:815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, J, Pivneva, I and Titone, D (2014) Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (1), 89–117. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S (2016) Heritage language development. Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism. Online first DOI: 10.1177/1367006916654368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mor, B, Yitzhaki-Amsalem, S and Prior, A (2014) The joint effect of bilingualism and ADHD on executive functions. Journal of Attention Disorders 19, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nip, I & Blumenfeld, HK (2015) Proficiency and linguistic complexity influence speech motor control and performance in Spanish language learners. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 58(3), 653-–8. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-13-0299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelham, SD and Abrams, L (2014) Cognitive advantages and disadvantages in early and late bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40, 313–325.Google ScholarPubMed
Prior, A (2012) Too much of a good thing: Stronger bilingual inhibition leads to larger lag-2 task repetition costs. Cognition 125, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichle, RV (2010) Judgment of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the Critical Period Hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 48, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, RV and Birdsong, D (2014) Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1–30. doi: 10.1017/S0272263113000594Google Scholar
Robinson Anthony, JJD and Blumenfeld, HK (2018) Language dominance predicts cognate effects and inhibitory control in young adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1–17. doi:10.1017/S1366728918001013Google Scholar
Rochanavibhata, S & Marian, V (in preparation) A cross-cultural comparison of mother-child communication in the United States and Thailand.Google Scholar
Rubin, A (2012) Statistics for evidence-based practice and evaluation. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Scherer, LC, Fonseca, RP, Amiri, M, Adrover-Roig, D, Marcotte, K, Giroux, F, Senhadji, N, Benali, H, Lesage, F and Ansaldo, AI (2011) Syntactic processing in bilinguals: An fNIRS study. Brain and Language. doi: doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.005.Google Scholar
Schroeder, SR and Marian, V (2012) A bilingual advantage for episodic memory in older adults. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24 (5), 591–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheng, L, Lu, Y and Gollan, TH (2014) Assessing language dominance in Mandarin-English bilinguals: Convergence and divergence between subjective and objective measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (2), 364–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, L-F (2010) Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, L-F (2011) How “proficient” is proficient? Subjective proficiency as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words. American Journal of Audiology 20, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shook, A and Marian, V (2012) Bimodal bilinguals coactivate both languages during spoken comprehension. Cognition 124, 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocco, A and Prat, CS (2014) Bilingualism trains specific brain circuits involved in flexible rule selection and application. Brain & Language 137, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, N and Schatz, RT (2009) Effects of Japanese national identification on attitudes toward learning English and self-assessed English proficiency. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33, 486–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, C, Gonzalez, E and Pechak, C (2015) How should we prepare rehabilitation sciences students to work with low English-proficient Spanish-speaking patients? Journal of Allied Health 44 (2), 17E-21E.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Engen, KJ (2010) Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Communication 52 (11–12), 943–953. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2010.05.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitford, V and Titone, D (2012) Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19, 73–80. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0179-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yi, H-G, Maddox, WT, Mumford, JA and Chandrasekaran, B (2014) The role of corticostriatal systems in speech category learning. Cerebral Cortex 26 (4), 1409–1420. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed