Assessment for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Transcription

1 Assessment for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Bryan D. Miller, Ph.D., NCSP Professor in Gallaudet University School Psychology Program IU13 Preschool Early Intervention Psychologist

2 Goals Participants will be able to understand how to accurately report and interpret valid assessment results, and how to avoid common errors. Participants will be able to describe how valid assessment results can be used to guide instructional decisions.

3 Assessment Considerations Few standardized tests include specific norms for comparisons with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some standardized tests provide guidelines for administration of test items to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

4 Assessment Considerations Due to the problems encountered with standardized instruments, the inclusion of informal assessments is suggested. The use of informal assessments (such as interviews, observations, and work samples) can provide additional information on the student s skills. A word-for-word transliteration of standardized administration procedures may not adequately convey test instructions for student responses.

5 Assessment Considerations Cognitive/Intellectual Tests Verbal tests tend to measure the language deficiency caused by the hearing loss rather than the intellectual ability of the student. Therefore nonverbal (performance type) instruments should be emphasized. Additionally, select tests that can be adapted without impacting reliability and validity.

6 Assessment Considerations Achievement Testing There are many facets to consider when selecting standardized, normreferenced achievement tests for students with hearing loss, such as the student s communication modality, difficulty translating questions into sign language, and the lack of validity studies of such techniques.

7 Assessment Considerations Achievement testing is beneficial to establish baseline levels of an individual s educational performance and to monitor their academic progress over time. Curriculum-based assessments and measurements (CBA/CBM) and criterionreferenced tests may also be used to monitor academic progress over time. With these measures, a student s performance is compared to his/her own baseline rather than same age peers without a hearing loss.

8 Assessment Considerations Adaptive Behavior Scales It is important to include an assessment of adaptive behavior anytime cognitive or intellectual delays are suspected. There are none available with deaf norms. This is not considered to be a serious problem due to validity studies available.

9 Assessment Considerations Social-Emotional-Behavioral Assessment Social-Emotional-Behavioral assessments may provide a more accurate assessment for a student who is deaf or hard of hearing compared to the use of personality tests. A wide range of assessment tools is available. Few of the rating scales have deaf norms or norms that include people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

10 Assessment Considerations Social-emotional-behavioral assessments can be completed using behavioral observations, rating scales, and structured interview formats with the parent, the teacher, and the student. Assess student behavior across settings to provide valuable comparative data important for program planning. For students with problem behaviors that significantly interfere with learning, relationships with others, or daily living, a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is recommended.

11 Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory The broad cognitive abilities include comprehension-knowledge (Gc), fluid reasoning (Gf), auditory processing (Ga), short-term memory (Gsm), visual-spatial thinking (Gv), processing speed (Gs), and long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). Approximately 70 narrow cognitive abilities are subsumed by these broad cognitive abilities (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001). According to McGrew and Flanagan (1998), Flanagan, McGrew, and Ortiz (2000), and Flanagan and Ortiz (2001), school psychologists and other educational professionals do appear to be able to construct assessments in a way that cover all of the broad cognitive abilities included in CHC theory by utilizing different intelligence test batteries in a systematic and empirically supported method.

12 Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory is a recent synthesis of the Cattell-Horn Gf- Gc theory (Horn & Noll, 1997) and the Carroll three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993, 1997). CHC theory is a hierarchical framework of human cognitive abilities that consists of three strata: general intelligence or g (stratum III), broad cognitive abilities (stratum II), and narrow cognitive abilities (stratum I).

13 CHC Theory-Based Evaluations Understanding the relationship between environmentally dependent crystallized intelligence (Gc) and English language reading and writing skill development (McGrew, Flanagan, Keith, & Vanderwood, 1997), school psychologists need to be careful to, when identifying specific learning disabilities in reading and writing among culturally and linguistically diverse populations such as deaf and hard of hearing children, include cognitive processing weaknesses that are separate from the crystallized intelligence (Gc) factor.

14 CHC Theory-Based Evaluations Crystallized intelligence includes the following: breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture, abilities developed through an investment of abilities into learning through education and experience, store of informational declarative and procedural knowledge, ability to communicate and to reason with previously learned procedures, and abilities that reflect the role of learning and acculturation (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001).

15 CHC Theory-Based Evaluations This caution by no means implies neglecting other assessment measures of Gc as part of comprehensive evaluations, such as history taking, interviews, observations, language measures, and classroom-based measures that have been shown to clearly document response to frequent and varied interventions over time.

16 Cognitive Abilities of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Regarding the general cognitive abilities among deaf and hard of hearing students, Vernon (1969) provided evidence that deaf and hard of hearing people demonstrated levels of intelligence similar to the general hearing population.

17 Cognitive Abilities of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children The Gallaudet Office of Demographic Statistics in Washington, DC also found similar results with regard to nonverbal intelligence in deaf children with no additional disabilities (Shildroth, 1976).

18 Cognitive Abilities of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children In addition, Braden (1994) concluded from a meta-analysis of more than 300 studies relating to IQ and deafness that the distribution of IQ in deaf people is nearly identical to the IQ distribution of normal-hearing people (p. 103).

19 Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) Roid (2003) produced the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition (SB5), which provided composite scores for the five broad abilities of fluid reasoning (problem solving), knowledge, quantitative reasoning, working memory, and visual spatial processing through verbal and nonverbal test administration.

20 Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) In the SB5 manual, Appendix E Use of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, With Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals: General Considerations and Tailored Administration included general suggestions for the degree to which it was appropriate to administer subtests of the SB5 to four different communication groups.

21 Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) These groups included sign language, simultaneous communication, cued speech, and auditory verbal/oral, based on administration of the SB5 to a sample of 36 deaf and hard of hearing students.

22 Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) Ratings from 1 (administration is not recommended) to 6 (administration is possible with few or no modifications needed) were developed by Steven Hardy-Braz after administration and review of the subtests by experts in the assessment of deaf and hard of hearing students (Roid, 2003).

23 Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition (KABC-II; Kauffman and Kauffman, 2004) The Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition (KABC-II; Kauffman & Kauffman, 2004) was also published the next year in 2004 and included scales and subtests including visual spatial processing, short term memory, fluid reasoning, long term retrieval, and crystallized intelligence.

24 Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition (KABC-II; Kauffman and Kauffman, 2004) The KABC-II revealed promising results regarding a subsample of 18 school age deaf or hard of hearing students with hereditary, moderate to severe hearing loss and no comorbid conditions and who had at least one parent who could communicate in American Sign Language (ASL).

25 Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition (KABC-II; Kauffman and Kauffman, 2004) This subgroup was also determined to be assessed by examiners who were fluent in ASL and English-based signs and who were trained in evaluating deaf children. Mean scores on the scale indexes (mean=100/standard deviation=15) were as follows: long term retrieval=104, fluid reasoning=103, visual spatial processing=98, crystallized intelligence=85, and short term memory=85 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004).

26 Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) The Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) was published and included cluster scores measuring crystallized intelligence, fluid reasoning, visual spatial processing, short term memory, and processing speed.

27 Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) In addition, individual subtests were included measuring long term retrieval and auditory processing. Regarding administration with deaf and hard of hearing students, the DAS II included administration guidelines by communication modality (table 9.1), general subtest caveats (table 9.2), a standardized sign language CD, and clinical sample data for deaf and hard of hearing students (table 8.32).

28 Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) 35 deaf and hard of hearing students were included in the sample data, with the following demographic data available in the manual: family hearing status, age of onset of hearing loss, etiology of hearing loss, level of functional hearing in the instructional setting, assistive listening devices used in the classroom, child s instructional setting, types of support services received, and signing family members in the home.

29 Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) All children used ASL as their primary language and English was the only written or spoken language used in the home.

30 Differential Abilities Scale Second Edition (DAS II; Elliott, 2007) The clinical sample data revealed fluid reasoning ability and visual spatial ability cluster scores (mean=100/standard deviation=15) of 98.5 and 101.3, respectively, and not significantly different from a matched control group (Elliott, 2007).

31 Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test Second Edition (UNIT2; Bracken and McCallum, 2016) A nonverbal assessment in which the examiner uses simple gestures to communicate instructions. The student responds by pointing, drawing, placing chips, or moving blocks. The UNIT2 is appropriate for students with different cultural or language backgrounds, including deaf and hard of hearing students.

32 Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test Second Edition (UNIT2; Bracken and McCallum, 2016) A sample of 32 deaf or hard of hearing examinees was administered the UNIT2. The mean performance by the deaf or hard of hearing students performed well within the normal range on the UNIT2 (standard score range from to 93.25). These results provide strong evidence that the UNIT2 is a culturally fair measure of general intelligence for deaf or hard of hearing individuals (p from the UNIT2 manual).

33 Scales of Independent Behavior Revised (SIB-R; Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, and Hill, 1996) Scales of Independent Behavior Revised (SIB-R): A comparison group study revealed a small sample of deaf children (26 students) to have performance comparable to hearing children with regard to motor skills, personal living skills, and community living skills (SIB-R manual).

34 Scales of Independent Behavior Revised (SIB-R; Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, and Hill, 1996) The same deaf children performed significantly lower than hearing children in the social interaction and communication skills area, but further research needs to be completed to determine if this was due to the language of the scale, the communication mode of the examiner and/or examinee, or the true skills of the children (SIB-R manual).

35 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Third Edition (Vineland 3; Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Saulnier, 2016) The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Third Edition (Vineland 3) Comprehensive Teacher Form was completed to assess adaptive skills in the school environment. The performance of a sample of 67 children diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing demonstrated an Adaptive Behavior Composite of 92.9 (domain standard score range from 92.6 to 94.7) on the Comprehensive Teacher Form. The mean scores for the maladaptive subscales were all in the average range (p. 215 from the Vineland--3 manual).

36 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Third Edition (Vineland 3; Sparrow, Cicchetti, and Saulnier, 2016) The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Third Edition (Vineland 3) Comprehensive Parent Form was completed to assess adaptive skills in the home environment. The performance of a sample of 52 children diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing demonstrated an Adaptive Behavior Composite of 97.4 (domain standard score range from 96.8 to 100.6) on the Comprehensive Parent Form. The mean scores for the maladaptive subscales were all in the average range (p. 193 from the Vineland 3 manual). The performance of a sample of 78 children diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing demonstrated an Adaptive Behavior Composite of 98.8 (domain standard score range from 95.5 to 102.8) on the Comprehensive Interview Form. The mean scores for the maladaptive subscales were all in the average range (p. 170 from the Vineland 3 manual).

37 Adaptive Behavior Assessment Scales Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison and Oakland, 2003) Adaptive Behavior Assessment System Second Edition (ABAS-II) Teacher Form: The performance of a sample of 19 children ages 5-19 years diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing demonstrated a mean General Adaptive Composite (GAC) of 93, which was not significantly different from the mean GAC of 99 for the matched control group of hearing children (p from the ABAS-- II manual).

38 Adaptive Behavior Assessment Scales Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison and Oakland, 2003) Significant differences were also not apparent on the adaptive domains or skill areas. However, the communication skill area showed the greatest deficit when compared to matched controls. Results from this study suggest that children who are deaf or hard of hearing, on average, do not exhibit major deficits in adaptive skills on the ABAS-II (p from the ABAS II manual).

39 Adaptive Behavior Assessment Scales Second Edition (ABAS-II; Harrison and Oakland, 2003) However, these children may demonstrate deficits in specific skill areas and have slightly lower adaptive functioning than typically is found among children with no identified disabilities or disorders (p from the ABAS--II manual).

40 Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS; Conners, 1999) Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS): Used previously for research purposes with 40 deaf college students during the school year.

41 Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Adult Version (BRIEF-A; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, and Kenworthy, 2005) Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Adult Version (BRIEF-A): Used previously for research purposes with 40 deaf college students during the school year.

42 Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition (BASC-3; Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2015) The Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition Teacher Rating Scales (BASC-3): Revealed means ranging from 44.0 to 57.1 (all scores) in a special group sample of 26 deaf and hard of hearing students, which was similar to the general norm sample.

43 Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition (BASC-3; Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2015) The Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition Parent Rating Scales (BASC-3): Revealed means ranging from 48.9 to 56.6 (all scores) in a special group sample of 30 deaf and hard of hearing students, which was similar to the general norm sample.

44 Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition (BASC-3; Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2015) The Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition Self Report of Personality (BASC-3): Revealed means ranging from 45.6 to 55.7 (all scores) in a special group sample of 20 deaf and hard of hearing students, which was similar to the general norm sample.

45 Comprehensive Evaluation Background Information Hearing loss information, including a review of audiological functioning. History to determine the stability or possible changes in the individual's hearing capabilities, and the use of amplification. Current medical history, including secondary disabilities. Significant family, social, or academic information.

46 Comprehensive Evaluation Behavioral Observations Describe the student's skills, attention, eye contact, and preferred communication mode. Describe the psychologist's communication skills, including the use of an interpreter, how test instructions were communicated, how test instructions were modified or standardization violated, and how much training or modification was required to administer the subtests.

47 Integrating Assessment Information Step 1: Document all significant findings regarding the child. Determine if there are significant findings on the norm-referenced tests, diagnoses based on structured interview, or significant material from informal assessment.

48 Integrating Assessment Information Step 2: Look for convergent findings across sources and methods. Take a closer look at the assessment information and do not simply determine if a score crossed some threshold. Look at the full range of scores, problems, or symptoms.

49 Integrating Assessment Information Step 3: Try to explain discrepancies. Can the discrepancies be explained by different demands in the various settings in which a child was assessed? Can the discrepancies be explained by differences in the measurement techniques used or by certain characteristics/motivations of the informant? Can the discrepancies be explained by differing knowledge of the child across informants?

50 Integrating Assessment Information Step 4: Develop a profile and hierarchy of strengths and weaknesses. Prioritize the different areas of concern. Consider what problematic area may be primary and which areas may be secondary. Degree of impairment associated with different areas of dysfunction. Which problems appeared first? Which interventions target the primary or secondary problem areas?

51 Integrating Assessment Information Step 5: Determine critical information to place in the report. Use filtering - some information will have either minimal or no bearing on the final case conceptualization. Determine what information is essential for understanding the case formulation and subsequent recommendations for treatment, and what information should be omitted.

52 Common Mistakes in Report Writing Vocabulary Problems/Length Lengthy reports that include complex, meaningless words that are are written in language that can only be understood by the psychologist who wrote the report. Not frequently enough written in lay language. Child's actual behavior is under-emphasized. They include language that is so vague or not clear that it can not be challenged.

53 Common Mistakes in Report Writing Faulty Interpretation Most often occurs when the psychologist is clearly using the same theories or drawing the same conclusions in every report. A psychologist could interpret everything in a psychoanalytic manner or in a behavioral manner. When a psychologist draws conclusions that are clearly in conflict with the data collected for a child. Not making a diagnosis in contrast to the rating scale findings (can also happen in the reverse).

54 Common Mistakes in Report Writing Number Obsessions Think of the scores as a means to an end, with the end being better understanding of the child. Reporting a score and then saying it is invalid could be a problem. If a score is invalid, why report it? One does not have to a report a score for a test just because it was administered. Examples of factors impacting validity include overly positive responding, overly negative responding, and inconsistent responding.

55 Instructional Implications and Recommendations (Kirsch & Esposito, 2004) Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc): Involves expressive vocabulary, ability to grasp the relationship among word meanings, and knowledge acquired from general experience within the mainstream cultures. Gc is often called crystallized intelligence.

56 Instruction and Gc Gc Implications: Lack of information or language skills Inability to communicate one s knowledge Learning vocabulary Answering factual questions Comprehension of language Acquiring general knowledge and knowledge in content areas Using prior knowledge to perform activities and understand new concepts

57 Instruction and Gc Gc Recommendations: Relate new information to acquired knowledge Assess prior knowledge before introducing new topics and concepts Preteach relevant vocabulary or background information Provide specific vocabulary instruction such as the meaning of common prefixes, suffixes, and root words Incorporate interests and prior knowledge into instructional activities Use vocabulary that is understood by individuals when presenting directions or discussing concepts Provide additional repetitions of information

58 Instruction and Glr Long-Term Retrieval (Glr): Involves the ability to store and retrieve information through association.

59 Instruction and Glr Glr Implications: Difficulty in recalling relevant information and in learning and retrieving previously stored knowledge Inconsistent in remembering previously learned material Acquiring all basic skills Particularly important for acquiring phoneme/grapheme knowledge Efficiency of learning and retrieving information Organizing ideas and information for retrieval on tests or in presentations Developing strategies for recall Learning and recalling information through association (e.g., facts, related ideas/concepts) Using associations provided by the teacher to facilitate storage and later retrieval Retrieving specific words, memorizing poems, speeches, and facts

60 Instruction and Glr Glr Recommendations: Provide copious opportunities for over-learning, review, and repetition as over-learning is the best way to compensate for poor Glr Needs more repetition to learn that most peers Provide lists of steps to organize behavior and facilitate recall Provide structured multi-sensory learning experiences Provide context and meaning-based instruction Limit amount to new learning introduced at one time Provide immediate feedback

61 Instruction and Gv Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv): Involves perceiving, analyzing, and thinking with visual patterns, spatial configurations and designs, and spatial orientation.

62 Instruction and Gv Gv Implications: Assembling puzzles Using patterns and designs in art, geometry, and geography Designing Building Reading maps, graphs, chats, and blueprints Noting visual detail Sensing spatial boundaries (e.g., fitting, assembly, and packing) Poor spatial orientation Organizing, arranging furniture, appliances, and equipment for efficient use and visual appeal Misperception of object-space relationships Problems remembering visually presented material Tendency to miss subtle visual social and interpersonal cues

63 Instruction and Gv Gv Recommendations: Provide activities with manipulatives Provide copying, tracing, and drawing activities Provide activities involving construction and design Verbally describe graphics and visually based concepts Provide support for tasks requiring spatial organization

64 Instruction and Gf Fluid Reasoning (Gf): Involves the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to ascertain commonalities and differences, form concepts, generate rules, and apply rules to solve novel problems.

65 Instruction and Gf Gf Implications: Drawing inferences Solving abstract problems Creating solutions to unique problems Transferring and generalizing information Ability to contend with novelty in tasks Thinking conceptually Problem solving through rule application Difficulty in grasping abstract concepts, generalizing rules, and seeing implications May have difficulty changing strategies if first approach does not work

66 Instruction and Gf Gf Recommendations: Teach problem solving strategies Provide over-learning and repetition for new concepts directly programmed for generalization and transfer Use manipulatives to develop concepts Teach strategies to increase an understanding and retention of concepts (e.g., self talk, lists of procedures or steps) Teach problem-solving techniques in real world contexts in which they are most likely to be applied

67 Instruction and Gs Processing Speed (Gs): Involves the ability to perform relatively simple cognitive tasks automatically, particularly when under pressure to maintain focused attention. May be influenced by attention.

68 Instruction and Gs Gs Implications: Academic fluency and automaticity Rapidly processing information Completing assignments within time limits Taking timed tests Making rapid comparisons between and among pieces of information Copying from board or book Using scantron answer sheets Easily overwhelmed by complex or multi-step verbal directions

69 Instruction and Gs Gs Recommendations: Provide more time to complete assignments Reduce quantity or work in favor of quality Limit or structure copying activities Provide activities to increase rate and fluency (e.g., flash cards, speed drill, educational software)

70 Instruction and Gsm Short Term Memory (Gsm): Involves the ability to hold information in mental awareness and use it within a few seconds.

71 Instruction and Gsm Gsm Implications: Slow execution of easy cognitive tasks Slow acquisition of new material Tendency to become overwhelmed by complex events May have difficulty making correct conceptual decisions quickly Integrity in attending and sustaining concentration Following directions Remembering information long enough to process it for understanding Recalling sequences and general sequential processing General efficiency for encoding and memorization of information Comprehending lengthy discourse and taking notes

72 Instruction and Gsm Gsm Recommendations: Keep directions short and simple Ensure directions are understood Provide compensatory aids (e.g., write directions, procedures, and assignments on board or paper, provide lecture notes or arrange for peer shared notes, provide study guide to be filled out during pauses in presentation) Provide over-learning, review, and repetition Teach specific memory strategies (e.g., chunking, rehearsal, visual imagery) Provide extra time in responding even to well-practiced tasks

73 Social and Emotional Intervention PATHS: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (Greenberg & Kusche, 1998) PATHS is a comprehensive program that promotes emotional and social competencies and reduces aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children. This program is implemented in the school setting with the understanding that it should be integrated with the natural educational process of the classroom. Designed to be used by educators, counselors, and parents. Originally developed for used with deaf and hard of hearing children but has subsequently been used with other populations. PATHS enables students to learn to act and react appropriately with peers and adults and to control their own behavior.

74 Social and Emotional Intervention PATHS is a classroom wide prevention curriculum that includes many aspects of supporting social and emotional development. Authors first developed the curriculum with the objectives to teach deaf and hard of hearing children effective interpersonal problem solving skills. Their purpose was that the means to achievement of effective interpersonal problem solving skills is to build emotional awareness and emotional regulation skills so that the deaf or hard of hearing child uses inner speech to guide behavioral self control.

75 Social and Emotional Intervention PATHS is based on cognitive behavioral principles, including the elements of cognition, behavior, and affect. The five domains that the PATH curriculum addresses are self control, emotional understanding, interpersonal problem solving skills, positive self esteem, and peer communication and relationships. The lessons are taught three times a week for 20 to 30 minutes for most of the school year (Greenberg & Kusche, 2006).

76 Social and Emotional Intervention PATHS curriculum has shown long term effectiveness with regular education classes (Kelly, Longbottom, Potts, & Williamson, 2004), special education (Kam, Greenberg, & Kusche, 2004), and deaf and hard of hearing classrooms (Greenberg & Kusche, 1998). In a follow up to their 1994 study, Greenberg and Kusche (1998) found that 1 and 2 year post intervention assessments showed that the deaf children who had participated in the PATHS program exhibited better problem solving skills, better social emotional adjustment, and improvements in cognitive functioning, including less impulsive responding as well as verbal self direction and planning. Teachers have commented that the program promoted language development (Curtis & Norgate, 2007). All of these positive outcomes are clearly related to social and emotional development.

77 Link for SurveyMonkey: Hard-of-Hearing