Most assessments of cognitive abilities are language bound (e.g., directions presented orally or written), even when not assessing linguistic ability. Understanding the relationship between bilingual language acquisition and outcomes on tests of cognitive abilities is critical, given the reliance on intelligence assessment for learning disability accommodations and intellectual disability diagnoses. Research has been mixed regarding the presence of a bilingual advantage or disadvantage on cognitive performance. Thus, the purpose of this review is to examine differences between several types of language users (i.e., early/late, simultaneous/sequential, English dominant / Spanish dominant/balanced), focusing on the relation between level of language acquisition and use and implications for outcomes on tests of cognitive abilities. To conduct the systematic review, guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used (Liberati et al., 2009). Fifty-two articles met eligibility criteria and are included in this review. Results from the systematic review suggest that bilinguals perform differently than monolinguals in several domains and may be considered neurologically unlike monolinguals. The paper concludes by advocating for the need for appropriate assessment instruments and norms specific for bilingual speakers, as currently available measures cannot reliably and accurately differentiate monolinguals with a language impairment from typically developing bilinguals.

中文翻译：

---

双语[劣势]

大多数对认知能力的评估都与语言有关（例如，口头或书面的指导），即使不评估语言能力也是如此。鉴于学习障碍调节和智力障碍诊断依赖智力评估，了解双语习得与认知能力测试结果之间的关系至关重要。关于双语对认知表现的优势或劣势的研究结果喜忧参半。因此，本次审查的目的是检查几种类型的语言用户之间的差异（即，早/晚，同时/顺序，英语为主/西班牙语为主/平衡），重点是语言习得和使用水平之间的关系和含义用于认知能力测试的结果。为了进行系统评价，使用了系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 的指南 (Liberati et al., 2009)。52 篇文章符合资格标准，并被纳入本次审查。系统评价的结果表明，双语者在多个领域的表现与单语者不同，并且可能被认为在神经学上与单语者不同。该论文最后主张需要针对双语使用者的适当评估工具和规范，因为目前可用的措施无法可靠和准确地区分具有语言障碍的单语者和典型的双语者。52 篇文章符合资格标准，并被纳入本次审查。系统评价的结果表明，双语者在多个领域的表现与单语者不同，并且可能被认为在神经学上与单语者不同。该论文最后主张需要针对双语使用者的适当评估工具和规范，因为目前可用的措施无法可靠和准确地区分具有语言障碍的单语者和典型的双语者。52 篇文章符合资格标准，并被纳入本次审查。系统评价的结果表明，双语者在多个领域的表现与单语者不同，并且可能被认为在神经学上与单语者不同。该论文最后主张需要针对双语使用者的适当评估工具和规范，因为目前可用的措施无法可靠和准确地区分具有语言障碍的单语者和典型的双语者。