,,,_,_.,:,:;,;fl 3.; g ,9 E g g, E:

.3 3.”..‘(x‘u
\a‘w . ¢

.>" .‘C

t: f" ,
‘ . . qfi'
. : k '-

'0

. "KC 7
¢ E . ‘1'
Uri i

I
.I

. 1‘ ‘ '.
‘ N N. '
“ 7 1 do

"9.x (t i
I} ‘ .‘ '
Eggkfl)

'1
I

<4
.g;
Lv‘

. «‘z" :1.
_ 1‘3. 'VK‘

( t 3/7“";-
L-

V LL'J-Lé

CA

0

j?

K

r?

”lasts

_ ..- . sum -‘d- --..A— '— ‘_—:‘::_ ‘ ' A

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A STUDY OF 80E! PERSONALITY

ASPECTS OF DEAF ADOLESCENTS

presented by

Martin Dean

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_M._A._degree mJ-EIEGE—

Mira.

Major professor I

Date Aug. 12, 1950

 

0-169

V ,
L
.

- . . .‘vz' p.25“:-
.- r_- . - ‘- ‘ ' '. ~ 1 _:-'.: 'g.‘
' . Iii}! 'a'le‘ .9... 9,0" 5;“ xt_v.('$£:‘-'f.§ll &'_r¥v‘.’.z¢ f". . .

 

._..-—.—.-— -. —

 

-—.—.—.'——-———v' —-

ACKNOWLEDGMENBS

The writer hereby expresses grateful
appreciation to Dr. Charles Pedrey. Director of
the Speech Clinic. for his interest. encouragement.
and constructive criticism in connection with the
preparation of this thesis.

The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Albert
Cordrw. Counselor of Foreign Students, Miss Elsie
Edwards, and Mr. Clyde Dow for their very able as-
sistance in the construction of this paper.

Appreciation is extended to the members
of the staff at the Michigan School for the Deaf
who were so very helpful and cosperative. and es-
pecially to Mr. Lavos, Mr. Jgnes. and Miss Detrich
for their aid in constructing the inventory.

An amount of thanks that cannot be ex-
pressed in words goes to my wife. Betty. without
whom this thesis perhaps would never have been
finished.

Dhrtin James Dean

ASI'U'DYOFSOMEPERSONLLITYASPEG'I'S
OFDEAI’ADOIJSOEN'I‘S

WINJ’MESDEAN

A THBIS
Suhaitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MLSI'EROFAM‘S

Department of Speech
‘ 1950

IHEblS

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPI‘ER

I.IN'I'ROIIJCTION..........

TABLE OF CONTENI‘S

Skatement of the Problem . . . . .

Purpose of the Study , , , , , , ,

II. REVIEWOFPREVIOUSRESEAICH . . . . . .

III. PSYCHOLOGYOB‘THEDEAFI . . . . . . .

Conceptions Regarding the Deaf . . .

Attitudes Toward the Deaf ls They Appear
to the Deaf

Deafness and Blindness . . . . . .

Reactions and Adjustments to Situations

,."J1V.EUJCATIONOFTHEDEAF. . . . . . . .

Need for Comminication . . . . . .
Language Problem I. . . . . . . .
Language Handicap . . . . . . .
Methods of Instructing the Deaf . . .
Definitions ocf Methods . . . . .
Oral method versus Sign Language . . .
Day Schools versus Residentaal Schools .

Modernhims in Education . . . . .

,"’V.SOCIABILI'I'YOFT}IEDEAF . . . . . .

in“. ‘8
“x. f) j
y

l

‘3

3T4

3'?

\

Social Organizations . . . . . . .

writ“ Stat“. e e e e e e e e e

VI.’I‘HEADJUSI‘MENI'mV'ENTORY . . . . . . .

Need for An Adjustment Inventory . . .

PAGE

12

12

17
19
25
25
26
27
28

31
35
39

CHAPTER PAGE

Sources of Inventory Items . .. . . .. . . . ’44
Form of the Adjustment Inventory . . . . , , 1L5
The Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’45
Administration of the Inventory . . . . . , as
Inventory Results- . .. . . . . . . . . . 1&3
Reliability of the Inventory . . . . , , . 51
Validity of the Inventory . , , , , , , , 56
xi; Discussion of Item Analysis . , ., , , , , 56
SVFKVII. sum AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY................ 71

TABLE

I.

II.

III.

V. Reliability of the Adjustment Inventory for Deaf

VI.

VII.

VIII.

Ix.

LIST OF TABLES

Chronological Age and Intelligence Quotient of

Deaf Adolescents Tested . . . . . . .

Characteristics of Deaf Adolescents Tested

Score of Deaf Adolescents on Adjustment Inventory

Intercorrelation of Adjustment Scores on the

Adjustment Inventory. . . . . . . .

Adolescents- . . . . . . . . . .
Adjustment Inventory for Deaf Adolescents --
Reliability Data . . . . . . . . .
Adjustment Inventory Correlated With Age and
Intelligence Quotient _. . . . . . .
Detroit Day School for the Deaf . .. . .

Item Analysis of Adjustment Inventory . .

PAGE

#7

1&9

50

52

.53

5h

.55

57
58

CHAPTER I
INI‘ROIIIGTION

Deafness is a handicap-which produces. in general. a marked
restriction in the environnent of its victims. Iith the deaf., par-
ticularly with those born deaf or becoming so in the earliest years
of life. to whom is denied the spoken and heard word as a medium of
comication with the outside world. the mind is held back. What-
ever the potential mental capacity of the deaf person. whatever its
innate condition at the outset. he starts forth under a tremendous
handicap. with the processes for learning and the acquisition of
knowledge severely impeded. In this respect. the deaf live in
greater isolation from the rest of the world than could be achieved
for any artificially controlled experimental population. Therefore.
research into the personality adjustments of such subjects should be
of particular interest.

W 9; m m In personality studies or hearing
populations. self-descriptive adjustment inventories have been of
considerable value and various instruments are now available for the
measurement of different aspects of adjustment in children and adults.
The question of whether deaf adolescents should be tested on a scale
standardised on the hearing. or on a scale standardized on the deaf
alone is a meet one. It is of vital importance to some educators of
the deaf that test scores of deaf adolescents be compared with those

of the hearing since the ultimate aim of those using oral methods is

2
the preparation of deaf boys and girls to fit adequately into a hearing
environment both educationally and socially as soon as possible. new.
severe the characteristic language retardation.of the congenitally deaf
offers a serious obstacle to the ready application of such tools of
measurement to than.

m 91, the, m. In order to make an objective stuw
of some personality aspects of deaf adolescents enrolled in a residential
school for the deaf. an.adjustment inventory was constructed. adapted
more specifically to the relatively immature thinking habits and
limited knowledge of language usage characteristic of those so handi-
capped.. This inventory was designed to.measure four’adpects of adjust-
ment within.the group of residential school deaf adolescentsx. social.
school. home. and emotional adjustment. An.attempt was.made to
standardize this inventory on the basis of the deaf thanselves.
rather than a standardization based on.a hearing pepulation.. An
allied purpose of this study was to acquire a better understanding
and a greater working knowledge of the deaf and deafness itself.

This goal has been approached by concentrated observation of the

deaf subjects as well as through extensive reading.

CHAPTER II
REVIEI OF PREVIOUS m

he Comittee on Nomenclature of the Conference of Execu-
tives of American Schools for the Deaf in 1937 defined peeple with
defective hearing under two broad classifications: 'ihe Deaf and
the Hard of Hearing.1 The deaf are those whose sense of hearing is
non-functional for the ordinary purposes of life. This general
group is made up of two distinct classes based entirely upon the
time of the lossrof hearing. These are: (l) ‘Ihe congenitally deaf--
those who were born deaf. and (2) the adventitiously deafuthose who
were born with normal hearing but in whom the sense of hearing became
non-functional later through illness or accident. The hard of hearing
are those in whom the sense of hearing. although defective. is functional
with or without a hearing aid. The research undertaken in this paper
concerns. mainly. the congenitally deaf; in addition. the adventitiously
deaf who lost their hearing before they acquired language.2

Inventory results may not only give evidence of a pupil's
problems in adjustment or suggest the need for special treatment.
but may supply as well some clues to, his needs in educational and
vocational guidance. Moreover. what the child says about himself

in response to individual test items may supplement other available

 

l 8.. Richard Silveman. 'The Implications for Schools for
the Deaf of Recent Research on Hearing Aids.‘ W m 21. m
m. Vol. 9h. No. 11.. September. 1191.3. .

2 Usually. before the age of 3.

. h
information about him. The inventory has been employed as a measuring

instrument in a comparison of the behavior adjustment of deaf and
hearing children.

Applied in this capacity. the Adjustment Inventory admin-
istered by Pintner'and Brunschwiga revealed consistent differences
between the deaf and hearing. pupils of residential schools for the
deaf averaging in every instance poorer scores than hearing public
school children. The largest difference between the two sets of
groups occurred in social adjustment.

In a study to determine whether deaf and hearing children
differ from each other on certain standardised scales. various phases.-
of personality were measured} When the deaf and hearing children
were compared with the Haggerty-Olson-Wiclsnan standard. it was found
that both groups presented more overt behavior problems and un-
desirable personal characteristics than children in general.

The general implications of the results obtained in this
study would seem.to indicate that the deaf children differ very
little from their hearing control group in those phases of person-
ality which the Haggerty-Olson-Wickman Behavior Schedules measure.
Both the deaf and the hearing children included in this study are

more maladjusted than children in general. Their scores on the

 

3 R. Pintner and L. Brunschwig., 'An Adjustment Inventory
for the Use in Schools for the Deaf.’ m m g; m M,
Nbreh. 1937. vol. 82. no. 2. p. 166.- i

1;. N. Norton Springer. 'A Comparative Study of the Behavior
Traits of Deaf and Hearing Children of New York City.‘l W Amen

SEE... Ma VOI' 830 N00 30 Me 19380 PP. 270-2730 -

‘i

5
various behavior rating scales indicate that they present more per-

sonality problems than the children of the Phggerty norm groups.

The Haggerty-Olson-Wickman Behavior Rating Schedule was
used by Kirk to rate 112 deaf and hard of hearing children in grades
1 to 8. Conclusions may be sumarized as follows:

1. Deaf and hard of hearing children as a group present
significantly greater problem tendencies than normal
hearing children.

2. The greatest difference was found in emotional traits.
while the least difference was found in intellectual
and physical traits.

3.. As with normal children. defective-hearing boys exceed
defective-hearing girls in behavior problems.

1;. There was no difference between the deaf group and the
hard of hearing group in problem tendencies.

5. This study confirms the observations of others that
children with defective hearing have more cautious].
problems than do normal hearing children.-5

Streng and Kirk .conducted a study with ninety-seven deaf
and hard of hearing children (ages 6 to 18) in a public day school
for the deaf. They were given (1) the Grace Arthur Parformance
Scale. (2) the Chicago Noanerbal Examination. and (3) the Vineland
Social Bhturity Scale. The following results were obtained:

1. The group was average in intelligence since the mean IQ,
on the Grace Arthur Scale was 100.9 and on the Chicago
Non-Verbal Test. 95.5.

2. The group was approximately average in SQ, (Social mturity
Quotient). The mean SQ. for the group was 96.2 with an
SD (Standard Deviation) of 12.8. This is very similar
to Doll's normal hearing group varich had a mean SQ, of
100 andan SD of 12..

3.. There was no difference between the deaf and the hard of
hearing children either in intelligence or in SQ. The

 

5 San-rel A. Kirk. |'Behavior Problem Tendencies in Deaf and

Hard of Hearing Children.‘ m m .93, the, M. Vol. 83.
No. 2. lurch. 1938. pp. 136-137. -

mean SC, for the 51 deaf children was 96.5., and for the
1.6 hard of hearing children 95.9.

h. The discrepancy between these results and previous studies
which indicated that the deaf were inferior in social
competence is orplained in one of the following ways:
Either (a) the children previously studied were also
inferior in intelligence. or (b) deaf children in day
schools are higher in social competenge than deaf
children in residential institutions.

In a comparison of mean social quotients for congenitally
and adventitiously deaf children. Burchard and Wklebust7 found the
mean SQ for the adventitiously deaf to be 82.1; with a SD of 12.1.
The mean SQ, for the congenitally deaf was 85.0 with a SD of 17.5.
The mean difference between the two groups was 2.60; the standard
error was 2.90. and the critical ratio. .89. They concluded this-
part of their experiment by stating that there is not a statistically
reliable difference between congenitally deaf children and children
who have acquired deafness. There is. however. a retardation in
social maturity for both groups ranging from 15 to 18 points.

In a validation study of the Vineland Social hhturity
Scale at the New Jersey School for the Deaf. Bradway8 used ninety-two

subjects ranging in age from 5 to 21 years. are obtained a mean SQ

 

5 Alice Strong and Sexual A. Kirk. 'The Social Cohpetence
of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in a Public Dav School.‘ m

Annals 2:. lbs. M. 1701- 83. No- 3. Mac. 1938. pp. 252-253.

7 Edward M. L. Burchard and Helmer n. Wklebust.. 'A Com-
parison of Congenital and Adventitious Deafness with Respect to Its
Effect on Intelligence. Personality. and Social laturitynPart III:

Personality.’ genius Annals. 9:. its Eat.- Vol- 8?. 19h2-

8 Batherine Preston Bradway. “The Social Competence of Deaf
Children.’ m m 9; the @3101. 82. No. 2. March. 1937.

q

of 80.7 for the group with a SD of 11.3.. and concluded that the deaf
are retarded approximtely 20 SQ, points in social competence.

The Brown Personality Inventory for Children was given to
397 deaf and 32? hearing children by N. Norton Springer. in order to
determine whether there are group differences between deaf and hearing
children in their manifestation of maladjusted behavior. as measured
by their psychoneurotic responses.9 The deaf children were. on the
average. more than four years older than their hearing control.

All the groups of deaf children were found to receive such
hidler neurotic scores than the hearing control children. he dif-
ferences between the deaf and hearing children were wary large and
of a high degree of statistical significance.

When the results of this study were compared with the
published norms. all the deaf and hearing groups were found to receive
mch higher neurotic scores than the children of the norm group. The
deaf children. in particular. fell within the highest possible range
and. according to Brown's classification. made a 'very poor adjust-
ment.‘ The hearing groups fell within the 'poor‘adjustment' category.

‘ A comparison was made by Rudolf Pintner and Lily Brunschwig1°
of the responses of deaf and hearing public school children to a check

list of 39 fears.. and to 7 sets,- of wishes which permitted a choice

 

9 N. Norton Springer. 'A Comparative Study of the Patcho-
neurotic Responses of Deaf and Hearing Children.“ m M gt,

Eduggtiog]. W Vol. 29. 1938. -

10 Ridolf Pintner and Lily Brunschwig. 'A Study of Certain
Fears and Wishes Among Deaf and Hearing Children." m m gt,

Educational Psycholog. Vol. 28. 1937. a

between a desire for the imediate fulfillment of a smaller gratifi-
cation and the delayed fulfillment of a greater good.

Deaf girls reported significantly more fears than hearing
girls. deaf boys slightly more than hearing boys. Sex differences
were greater than differences between the deaf and the hearing.

Deaf boys and girls expressed a greater number of wishes
for iImnediate satisfaction than the hearing . Differences between
the deaf and the hearing in this respect were larger than between
the sexes. Deaf girls eacpressed more fears than any other group.
and also the (largest nunber of wishes for imediate satisfaction.

Correlations between scores on the fears and wishes feats
with the factors of age intelligence. age at becoming deaf. and per
cent of hearing in the better car were slight.

With respect to the six most frequently named fears. there
was complete agreement among the deaf and the hearing of both sexes.
0n the wishes test. the deaf exceeded the hearing in wishes for im-
mediate gratification. and particularly in those items that involved
articles for imediate consumption.

In a study made by Isobel Gregoryn comparing the responses
of deaf and hearing children in institutions as to certain personality
and interest items. the most characteristic difference between the

two groups of institutionalized children was the tendency on the part

 

11 Isobel Gregory, 'A Comparison of Certain Personality
Traits and Interests in Deaf and in Hearing Children.‘ M m
9931. Vol. 9. March-December. 1938. -

9
of the deaf to withdraw from social participation and responsibilities.
This tendency is shown in their desire to be younger and more dependent
and to isolate themselves from social pastimes. The greater desire
on the part of the deaf for more friends. as well as their inability
to get on well with their teachers. suggest an insecure social adjust-
ment. The less adequate emotional adjustment exhibited by the deaf
also indicates their less satisfactory adaptation to adolescents.

The personality inventory scores of 1.263 pupils administered
by Pintner and Brunschwigl'2 were classified and averaged with respect
to amount of deafness in each subject's family. With some minor ex-
ceptions. the findings supported the belief comonly held by those
acquainted with the deaf. that deaf children coming from families in
which there are also other deaf members tend to be better adjusted
than dance in families where they are the only member so afflicted.

Iellesl3 administered the Bernreuter Personality Inventory
to 225 urban hard of hearing adults and compared the scores with
those of comparable normal hearing subjects. He found the hypacousic:
group to be significantly more emotional. more introverted and less
dominant than the hearing control group. There was no marked dif-

ference between the two groups in self-sufficiency.

 

12 R. Pintner and L. Brunschwig. 'Some Personality Adjust-
ments of Deaf Children in Relation to Two Different Factors.‘ m

222mm who Vol. 39. No. 1. September. 1936. ~

13 a. H. Well». ”The. W 2!. 92m; mm 2:321:-

gonalig £12298 Hard 9; Hearng mat..- Teachers College. Columbia
University Contributions to Education. .1932. p. 5L5.

10

m the basis of the Thurstone Personality Schedule. Iyonu‘
found the percentage of deaf hid: school pupils classified as emtionally
maladjusted to be twice that of college freshmen of corresponding age.

ladden.15 using a short rating scale. found that the hard
of hearing are not rated as leaders... and are often more shy and solitary
than normal childran.

A study. by Pintner reports the results of the Bernreuter
Inventory for 9h hypacousic individuals living in shell towns and
rural comnities all over the United States and Canada compared with
hearing individuals. The hypacousic and hearing groups are very
similar in age. education. and social background. The results of
the Bernreuter test show the hypacousic group to be decidedly more
neurotic. more introverted. and more submissive than its control
hearing group. Cornparing the hypacousic group with Bernreuter's
standards for women in general. it is found that they deviate in
the above three traits and. in addition. show themselves more self-
sufficient than hearing women.16

The picture of the average hypacousic individual shown by

 

11; V. W. Lyon. 'Personality Tests with the Deaf..' m
£22.19. 21’. m M. 19311» ~Vol. 79. pp- l-h. ~

15 Bo Madden. mmmmrmmmmm.
Teachers College. Contributions to Education. No. M9..1931.

16 Rudolf Pintner. 'Enotional Stability of the Hard of
Hurine.‘ M 9.: 9229.113. Eurasian. Vol- 1:3. No. 1. September.
1933. pp- 293-311.

the Bernreuter test does not show such a marked deviation from.the
average hearing individual as might have been imagined. The shock
of deafness is great. particularly if it comes suddenly and in
adolescence. That so many individuals would seem to be able to
readjust their lives more or less satisfactorily with little or
no help. would lead one to hope that a deeper understanding of the
peculiar psychological difficulties involved.mdght eventually give
rise to a technique of re-education that would bringtabout an
adequate readjustment more speedily and.to a larger number of in,

dividuals.

CHAPTER III
monomer or um um

W W m 2931.1 While the deaf are as a
rule quite normal in appearance. and seemingly entirely able-bodied.
the fact that they fail to respond or to comrnicate when addressed
creates an impression that is not altogether favorable to thm.

Being unable to hear. their faces appear blank or vacant without
acknowledgnent of sounds or words uttered in their presence. There

is no sign that they are aware of what is happening unless they should
be able to detect certain movements in front of them. Furthermore.
responses by them when they are accosted or spoken to are not usual
or accepted.

The fact that the deaf to a large extent do not use speech
in general groups or with strangers my receive gnater attention
than the mtter of the absence of hearing. It is upon this fact that
mjor consideration should be placed; too often. the hearing pepula-
tion fails to realize that such condition is simply a consequence or
derivative of deafness. It is held in the light of a separate af-
fliction.

In addition. the facial expressions of some deaf persons

 

1! Unless otherwise footnoted. the viewpoints expressed
'in this chapter are those of the author. based on M. detailed
observations at the Flint school. These observations consisted
of at least one-half school day over a period of time ranging
from April. 19159.. through m. 1950.

13
when in animated conversation with other deaf persons may at times
appear to be facial contortions. seemingly giving evidence of bad
temper. or of irritability. and regarded as not in keeping with
calmness of thought or feeling of self-control. It is not realized
that these eXpressions are little more than the result of strong or
energetic feelings. or as a vent to the emotions. just as the tone
or inflection of the voice may do to those who have hearing. 0n the
whole. of course. deafness does not mean that a person is entirely
unable to communicate with other people: it means that he gets only
part of what is going on about him.

While their inability to hear must always be a serious and
distressing handicap. it seems to be true that the deaf as a whole
are not unhappy. They are not morose.. sullen. or discontented; when
in the company of their deaf associates. they are able to derive
fully as large a portion of happiness as any other group of human
beings.

Frequent misapprehension with respedt to the deaf on the
part of the public is to regard them as though they were all on a
cannon level. or to' regard one of them as a representatige of a class.
The fact fails to be recognised that the deaf differ among themselves
fully as much as persons in entire possession of their hearing.

Deaf persons do not evoke the sympathy that is generally
imediate in the case of those whose physical affliction or defect
is more obiious. The situation with them is intensified because of

the lack of ability to make quick and ready response to speech directed

11;
to them; there is established some sort of obstacle beheen them and

the rest of the population.

It is such considerations as these that cause a misunder-
standing of the deaf to so great an extent on the part of the public.
The deaf are liable to be looked upon as 'queer' or abnormal: they
may be regarded as morose or moody; they dre approached with a degree
of caution; they may even be shunned or rebuffed. There my be built
up toward them an attitude combined of wonder. misgiving. fear.
aversion -- a vague feeling that they are more or less different and.
distinct from other people in their thoughts and actions.

mmmmnm'mamm. In
order to understand the full meaning of the social limitations in-
volved in deafness we have to consider the behavior and attitudes of
hearing persons toward the deaf as they appear to the deaf. We find
that may of the deaf feel that the cause of their difficulties lies
with the hearing. They recognize and accept the fact that they thu-
selves are handicapped in a physical sense. but that their deafness
involves peculiar social problems they blame largely on the group of
those who are not deaf.

It is interesting to see what the deaf themselves say of
the different groups with whom they come into contact and especially
about the reasons why they prefer to associate with one group or
another. Some say that they prefer to be with hearing peeple because
they learn more from them than from the deaf; others give a more

abstract reasons: they want to be with the hearing in order to keep

1.5
themselves as 'normal' as possible. They wish to be' like the majority

group because' it represents the social norm. not because of its in-
trinsic characteristics.

With those who prefer to make their social contacts amng
the deaf. one may distinguish between those who do so of necessity.
that is those who are so limited in their means of commication that
they have no possibility of getting on with hearing people. and those
who are more or less free to choose their associates. Some feel that
they have greater social satisfaction from their contacts with the
deaf. Others prefer to be with the deaf because conmmnication is
easier with them. This preference assumes the use of signs or
spelling.

One study revealed the complaint that the hearing do not
bother to talk to the deaf. that they are impatient. that only a
few intimates or very sympathetic people take the trouble to enter
into conversation with the deaf.2 The difficult thing is to get a
hearing person to talk with a deaf person. The more intellectual
class are willing to sit down and write things out for the deaf.
but the average business man has no time to waste writing or otherwise.
Thus. the initiative for the social contact is left to the deaf person.
But if he tries to keep up with the group by too many questions the
hearing are too indifferent (or lazy) to give satisfactory answers.

Often. the hearing exclude the deaf from games or groups and fail to

 

2 Fritz Heider and Grace Abore Heider. 'Studies in the
Psycholom' of the Deaf.‘ W W. Volo 53. No. 5. 1941-

16.
recognize that their social needs are as great as those of normal

hearing persons.

The following excerpts were taken from an article written
by Cora Ham..3 Unfortunately. the opinions expressed by her therein
reflect the feelings of too many of the hearing population toward the
deaf as well as toward the deafened.

The truth is. the deafened are at least 'different' in mahy
respects. being somewhat queer in appearance and actions. and
unable to cape with many little situations in everyday life.
or to look out for themselves without the kindly offices of
others.

Maw avoid the deafened. That is but natural because of
the embarrassment of attempts to converse. especially if
others are present. Sometimes. in his longing to live in
the world of other people. the deafened nan makes himself
a nuisance by insisting that everything be explained to
him. and he is likely to make a confidential remark in a
tone audible to all. He is a strain on everyone's nerves.
His constant blundering is trying. It is little pleasure
to converse with him. and those who do so from pity are
usually self-conscious and stilted. The unfortunate de-
fective is almost invariably left to take the lead. and
he wonders what people talk about when they meet.

The deafened person is not normal. and only the rare soul
among them can function fully as a member of society. Too
often. largely through his own fault. he is an undesirable
member of it.-

He cannot contribute his part to the social hour. and often
the best he can do is to avoid being a hindrance to the
pleasure of others. In daily occupations he cannot assume
some of the responsibilities that naturally belong to his
position. Whether in the family group or in msiness. the
deafened makes large dsaughts upon the forbearance of others.

There is consolation in the fact that all who come in contact with
the deaf and the deafened do not share these attitudes. else there

would be small hope of help. understanding. and guidance for the deaf.

 

3 Core M. Haines. I'The Effects of Defective Hearing Upon
the Individual as a I‘Ihmber of the Social Order.,'I Th9 m; 91

Abnormal 33g Social momma. Vol. 22. 1927-1928. pp. 153-155.

17

W and Blimsg. Frequently. the deaf are associated
in the public mind with the blind.

Blindness is in some ways more impressive than deafness.
For this reasoning. there are two supporting gacts: (1) There is a
great difference in the feelings of the normal person about his own
temporary experience of the conditions which the two handicaps involve.
‘ But quiet. even quiet as absolute as we can imagine. has an entirely
different value for the normal person from darkness. We all have a
certain fear of darkness because it robs us of security. Quiet. on
the other hand. involves little that is awful or dangerous. (2) Blind
eyes are more impressive than deaf ears. We can see blindness. usually
in the face itself. almost always in every movement that the blind
person makes. but the deaf person. until he has to speak or understand
what someone else says. usually gives the appearance of being a per-
fectly normal man. We think of him as equal to ourselves. then are
constantly annoyed. surprised. or anmsed. as the case may be. at the
way he behaves as we come into closer contact with him. But the
handicap itself is not constantly before us as the cause of his
peculiar behavior. In the case of blindness. on the other hand.
every abnormality of behavior is attributed directly to the handicap
and objectified. It is seen from the beginning as the result of the
defective vision and not as something innately related to the character
and mind of the individual. ‘ Deafness in itself can be disregarded

and abnormalities are then attributed to an inferiority of the

18

personality.

In a crowd a deaf man passes unnoticed as a unit of the

throng. but a blind man becomes conspicuous and seeing

none is seen of all. The deaf man is independent in his

movements. hampered in his discourse; the blind man must

always move with hesitant uncertainty but is free and un-

tremmelled in his utterances. Each has his compensations

and each seems happy.“

However important the loss of sound for its own sake may be.
we can safeLv assmne that with the average person the loss of sound
as a means of communication is vastly more significant. This fact
makes for one of the differences betwaen the deaf and the blind.

The blind are handicapped in their relation with the physical en-
vironment. The deaf are handicapped in their intercourse with the
social enfironment. The deaf person can do many things that the
blind cannot. He can get around by himself; he can handle machines;
he can drive a car; but one thing he cannot do -- he cannot converse
freely with hearing peOple.

People do not realize the difficulties of being deaf. That
is. they cannot imagine how they themselves would act in the absence
of an auditory connection with the world; they cannot imagine that
stability of personality and what intelligence are needed in making
the adjustment that most of the deaf achieve. Thus. it may often
happen that the hearing person does not enter into conversation with
the deaf person. does not explain to him what a conversation is about.

because of simple carelessness or laziness. or perhaps he is afraid

 

)4. George William Veditz. 'The Belative Value of Sight and
Hearinsd American Annals gf__t_h_g Deaf. Vol. 82. No. 2. March. 1937.

pe1510 “‘

19
of the embarrassment that may arise if the deaf person fails to under-
stand him. Or. there are times when there are things that must be
done quickly. in a minor emergency or as part of the day's routine.
and the hearing person feels that he cannot spare the time for com-
munication which is apt to be relatively slow. The deaf person. on
the other hand. may interpret this behavior at once in tens of an
unfriendly attitude.

A lessening of this temion will come about only when both
the hearing and the deaf have a more rational insight into the
situations, the hearing must come to understand the objective diffi-
culties with which the deaf have to contend and the deaf must come to
understand that often it is not ill-will on the part of the hearing
but more objective causes that are responsible for a failure to es-
tablieh contact.

W and W 10_ mm. It is often held
that physical handicaps leave their imprint on the emotional life of
the individual. This is considered to be particularly true in the
case of deafness as the auditory defect tends to restrict the range
of experience and to isolate the individual so affected from ready
social relations with the norml hearing.5 Moreover. persons who have
been without hearing from early childhood frequently suffer also from

a marked language handicap since the most important avenue of verbal

 

5 Rudolf Pintner. Irving 3. Fusfeld. and Lily anschwig.
'Personality Tests of Deaf Adults.‘I 1m 91 My, W
V01. 51. 1937. p. 305e L

20
commnication is closed to them. Their vocabulary is often meager and
their comprehension of the written word restricted. All of these
factors are likely to influence the personality adjustments of the
deaf.

Mich of the pathos of the deaf lies in the fact that they
live in a divided world. Their instinct tends to throw them with
their own kind. Here they can find free social contact. Yet practical
exigencies force them to orient themselves to a hearing world. It
is the dedicated task of education of the deaf to bring about this
orientation so that the deaf may carry on the struggle for existence
in a hearing society.6

While the deaf person mar be found to be an active component
in the economic and industrial life of society. yet his inability to
hear. accompanied by his general inability to speak fluently and in-
telligibly stand in the way of his prompt and continuous partaking
in its social life. He may have many friends among his hearing
acquaintances. but in the discourse which forms such a large part
of the interest in living. he is for the most part unable to join.
There is usually no ready means of communication as there is between
two hearing persons in their conversation. and his intercourse must
necessarily be slow and tedious.

Placed with his deaf friends. the deaf man discovers himself

in a different situation. He soon learns that by the use of that

 

6 D. O. Yelton. flame and the Deaf.‘ W m 9;
3.9.9. M. Vol. 83. No. 2. March. 1938., p. 111..

21
language of signs so largely employed by other deaf. and of which he
has in a short time become master. he is able to converse with an ease
and quickness fully as great as by that means of which he has been
deprived. Hence. he turns to his deaf comrades; in them he builds
up a congenial companionship and fellowship. and to them he looks
largely for his means of social diversion. With them he feels a
close bond of sympathy where their mutual interests are concerned.

Two comprehensive studies of the observational type have
been made. The first of these. by Naffin.7 was concerned directly
with the social behavior of deaf school children. Naffin concluded
that the language retardation of the deaf child results in a retarda-
tion in the formation of social groups during the pre-adolescent
years. but there after that there are no fundamental differences
between the deaf and hearing in social development. He reported
that the deaf showed no feelings of inferiority in their adjust-
ment to their own family groups and in team play with hearing
children. although even those who lived outside the school preferred
to play with their deaf schoolmates rather than with hearing children.

Pellet.8 whose principal concerns were thought development
of the deaf and social consequence of deafness. He comes to a dif-

ferent conclusion from that reached by Naffin. He believes that the

 

7 P. Naffin. 'Das Soziale Verhalten Taubstutmner Schulkinder..'
P- 107. u cited in W W. 1.9.9.- mo ~

8 R. Pellet. 'Des Premieres Perceptions du Ooncret a la Gon-
ception de L'Abstrait. Essai d'Analyse de la Pensee at de son Expression
Chez l'Engant Sourd-met.' P. 398. as cited in W W

Me Me «

22
deaf person reacts to his own handicap by showing increased aggressive-
ness and competitiveness in his relations with other people.

Pellet also feels that the language handicap of the deaf
results in emotional inmaturity. His argument is that most of the
words that we use to express feeling.. judgnents. and other emotional
responses in general. belong to the category of the more abstract
terms which the deaf person has special difficulty in mastering.
Pellet emphasizes the fact that the effects of deafness on personal
developnent have nothing to do with the deprivation of sound in itself.
but are rather the natural result of the restricted environment and
limited language experience which deafness involves.

The actual situation in which the deaf person lives is one
that would involve problems of adjustment for any person. whether
he hears or not. The deaf person is always faced with a barrier in
his efforts to communicate with other people. in making friends. and
in finding economic security. Some of the deaf react to their limita-
tions w doing something to help bridge the gap created by their
handicap. rather than by accepting the situation and withdrawing from
the difficulties that present themselves.

l‘rom these statements about the situation in which the deaf
person lives and of his adjustment to it one fact becomes clear:
difficulties arise not so much because the deaf are deaf as because
other people hear. For the most part. the deaf live as members of a

minority group within a social world in which the majority of people

23
hear and the frustrations and difficulties involved in deafness are
largely those created by the adjustment betwaen the majority that has
more and the minority which has less.

Every measure of adjustment must be based on a study of the
environment to which the adjustment is made. If the behavior of the
deaf is found to differ from that of the hearing. a closer study will
show that in many cases it is normal behavior in an abnormal situation
rather than abnormal or maladjusted behavior in the ordinary sense of
the word.

Statistical studies developed for use with normal hearing
peOple my fail to show the different kinds of adjustment that are
found in a group of the deaf since they are built to measure the
amount of deviation in directions which have already been found to
be important for a different group. Hence. there is a need for a

(broad preliminary study of the psychological environment of the deaf
and of the ways in which they adjust to it. Until surveys of this.
sort have given us a better understanding of the world of the deaf
and of the 'normal' adjustment to it. there can be no really adequate
measures of .the degree of adjustment in individuals or groups of
individuals.

Too long have the deaf been set down as a strange. uncertain
body of human beings. removed in their activities. manners. and modes
of thought from the rest of mankind. The interests of the deaf require

a different consideration and treatment. They demand that the deaf be

2h

regarded quite as other people. only unable to hear. When they are no
longer looked upon as a distinct and different portion of the race.
but entirely as normal creatures with tensions and problems beyond
our comprehension. we shall have taken a step in the right direction

toward educating and understanding the deaf.

25
cm 1v

EWGNI‘ION OF THE DEAF

Neg‘d £91 W. The mental Operations of deaf
children who are taught to speak do not differ in essential respects

from those of hearing children. The natural sign language. or the
acquired manual or finger language is not adequate for precision or
rapidity of thought. Speech distinguishes man from the lower animals
and is absolutely necessary to the highest physical develOpment.
hiring the first year. or prior to the period of beginning speech
developnent.. the congenitally deaf differ but little mentally from
normal children. ‘Ihe deaf child who has learned to speak and under-
stand speech by modern methods may be little handicapped mentally W
his deafness. because the only undeveloped cerebral area is that em-
ployed in audition. the visual area being specially trained to take
its place. The nearer we can approach normalcy of accomplishment
in speech and lip reading. the better fitted will our deaf pupils be
to take their places in the commnity.1

hhny deaf people learn to understand strangers and to make
themselves understood by people who are unfamiliar with the speech of
the deaf. but no deaf person has the facility in conversation that

every hearing person takes for granted. Even the lip reader. who is

 

l lax A. Goldstein. m g; 229. M. 1933. p. 278.

26
capletely at ease in talking with a single person. often loses the
thread when the conversation is passed from one person to another in a
group. And no one. of course. can read the lips unless the light is
adequate and properly directed.2

W W. In spite of the great amount of attention
attracted to the problem of the deaf. there scans to be little im-
provement in the language situation. The majority of deaf pupils
still leave school without language adequate for the simplest general
needs; the profession still finds it necessary to bolster its pro-
fessional self-respect by dwelling in thought upon its moderate success
with semi-flutes. with the hard of hearing. with pupils of exceptional
mental ability. and with the few average pupils with a flair for
language or with a past history of exceptional luck in the matter
of teachers.3

Something effectual should be done about this situation. a
situation quite unfair to the deaf pupil and his capabilities.

The lack of qualifications to teach the content of the
English language. thoroughly demonstrated by the fragnentary nature
of language work. has somehow escaped as a fact deserving consideration

and remedy. Observing the very undatisfactory results of determined

 

2 Heider and Heider. 91. 21in p. 59.

3 hhrietta Rector Vinson. “The Pupil's Case-~I.,' m
mg; 122M- Vol. 87. No. 2. larch. 191:2. -

27
efforts. teachers of the deaf have seized upon the so-evident fact of

deafness as the entire basis of rationalization. The profession has
thus far failed to recognize and face its inadequacy in the field of
teaching language to the deaf. Deafness is ideal for this rationali-
zation. Its victims are unable to plead their case and to shift much
of the responsibility to the shoulders of those who have failed in
meeting their needs adequately. Only by complete analysis. systems-
tization. and careful organization may one teach language thoroughly
to the deaf.‘l

W W. A beginning deaf child has no sense of
correct word order in a sentence. In expressing his thoughts. he
gives a mass of pantomimic gestures with no logical sequence. When '
he enters school he has no vocabulary; sometimes. he does not know
his name. or realize he has one. Hearing children. from babyhood.
hear thought expressed in correct order so often that the pattern
becomes instilled in them automatically. Their sole criteria for
judging logical sequence is whether of not it sounds right. whereas
deaf children have no criteria.

This language handicap. then. presents the greatest obstacle
in the education of the deaf. Because of it. language must be made
the core of the curriculum during the first years in school. Visible
signs and patterns have been devised as a help. although it is prac-

tically impossible to satisfactorily substitute a visible channel for

the auditory one.

 

h Vinson. Log. 21.10

28

Word deafness is an impairment of the use and understanding of
language due to weakened mental imagery. Very often a word-deaf child
hears well enough to pick up speech but does not understand it. He
has noml intelligence but the impairment is one that weakens the
faculty of association betwaen cortical centers that should function
integrally. Every possible association pathway. direct or indirect.
should be developed by training to compensate for this impairment.
The child suffering from word deafness needs to be taught by a method
of sense training;

Our greatest difficulty lies in the fact that the thing
to be taught and the medium through which it is to be taught are one
and the same thing. We have the English language to teach and nothing
by which to teach it except the English language.6

33% 21 W the, M. The literary education of
the deaf. with all its obstacles and hindrances. has received close
and earnest attention and study. Because of the peculiar methods
necessary for its accomplishment-mot througr the sense of hearing.
as with children in general... but througl the eye in particularuit
ranks as one of the most difficult of human undertakings. This
education has now become a science.

The problem of the instruction of deaf children is often

 

5 Ruth 0. Gay. 'A Case Study of Word Deafness.’ W
m KEEM, v01» 83. Me 2. Witch. 1938. p. 169e-

6 Wrthel 3. Nelson. 'The Evolutionary Process of Methods
of Teaching language to the Deaf with a Survey of the Methods Now

hployOd.‘ WW 9.: 113.9. m. v°1° 91h N00 39 Me 19160

29
misapprehended. The public.. including frequently the parents of deaf

children. may easily be carried away with the thought that deaf children
generally can be taught to speak and to read lips walk-sometimes almost
to the extent of regarding these things as a sort of substitute for

the absence of hearing.

During the time at school there must be diligent. steady.
unremitting. disciplined practice in language and in what is to be
obtained through it. Education met. by the nature of the case. be
a slow and arduous process.

It is said that 'the average deaf child from 12 to 15
achieves on the educational tests what the 8 or 9 year old child
achieves.'7

1Virtually all children are afforded the Opportunity to
learn speech; if there are indications of progress. such Opportunity
is provided through the school career;; if vocal articulation is
quite unsatisfactory. and hardly worth the effort. there may be a
transfer to non-oral means of instruction. though sometimes provision
may still be made for oral work in classes organized for the purpose.
The chief characteristics of the combined method may be said to be
flexibility and adjustability.

W .1 M93. The possible methods employed for
the instruction of deaf children may be sumarized as follows:

 

7 H. E. Dav. I. S. Fusfeld. and R. Pintner. 'Survey of
American Schools for the Deaf.‘ m ”3.1- of Lg 2231. Vol. 32.
19270 P0 3770

30

m m M91. Signs., the manual alphabet. and writing

are the chief means used in the instruction of the deaf

pupils. and the principal objects aimed at are mental
develOpment and facility in the comprehension and use of
written language. The degree of relative importance given

to these three means varies in different schools; but it

is a difference only in degree. and the and aimed at is the same
n all.

1'99. image]. Alphahei lashed. The manual alphabet and writing
are the chief means used in the instruction of the pupils.

and the principal objects aimed at are mental develOpment

and facility in the comprehension and use of written language.
Speech and speech reading are taught to all of the pupils

in the school recorded as following this method.

2% 9a}, m. Speech and speech reading. together
with writing. are made the chief means of instruction.

and facility in speech and speech reading. as well as
mental development and written language. as the use of
natural signs is allowed in the early part of the course.
and also in the prominence given to writing as an auxiliary
to speech and speech reading in the course of instruction;
but they are differences only in degree. and the and aimed
at is the same in all. In most of the oral achools and
with some of the pupils in some of the combined-system
schools the manual alphabet and sign language are never
used by any employee of the school.

[Egg W Ethog. The hearing of semi-deaf pupils

is utilized and developed to the greatest possible extent.
and with or without the aid of artificial appliances. their
education is carried on chiefly through the use of speech
and hearing. together with writing. The aim of the method
is to graduate its pupils as hard of hearing speaking
peeple. instead of deaf-unites.

m M M. Speech and speech reading are
regarded as very important. but mental develOpment and

the acquisition of language are regarded as still more
important. It is believed that in some cases mental
development and the acquisition of language can best

be promoted by the Mamal or Lhmral Alphabet thhod. and
so far as circumstances permit. such method is chosen
for each pupil as seems best adapted for his individual
case. Speech and speech reading are taught where the
measure of success seems likely to justify the labor

31-.
expended. and in some of the classrooms and some of the
combined-system schoo s the oral or the auricular method
is strictly followed.

Generally speaking. the least difficulty and the greatest
advantages in the instruction of deaf children are experienced with
thosewho have some speech and some language; next. with those who
have once had these things; next. with those who have once had speech
even if no language; and. lastly. with those who have never had any
speech or language.

ml M21 m gm Law. We are all eager to see
deaf children who can make satisfactory educational and social adjust-
ments return to the public schools. but we do not like to feel that
those who need a school for the deaf are being efiled. We do our
best to teach them to speak and not to sign. although we know the
vast majority of the adult deaf. from both oral and combined schools.
are going to find more complete social satisfaction and adjustment
among the deaf where they will not be entirely oral.9

It must be kept in mind that the purpose of teaching
language is to enable the child to communicate with people; there-
fore. language should be taught in the way in which it is to be used.
Correct usage of language can be habituated only through constant

usage in natural situations. The general aim ofeducation must be

 

8 the... Amer». 91. the 2:31. January. 1936. p. 285. mod
by Harry Best in ppm gag m M in the United States. 1914.3.

ppm 550-551.

9 William J. McClure. I'ltl’isleading Information Concerning
the Deaf.‘ £231.99. m 9; m 933;. Vol. 9h. No. a. September.
19h9- -

32
kept in mind: that of deve10ping the whole child in order that he.may
become adjusted to his environment and successfully take his place in
society.10

These Opposed to the use of the sign language. and especially
those who advocate the use of speech or of oral methods in the educa-
tion of the deaf. have not been slow in pointing out what they regard
as the shortcomings and the evils of the sign language.11 The argu-
.ments against its use have been stronguy presented. especially against
its use in schools which are supposedly given over'to the instruction
of deaf children. The foremost charge against the sign language is
that it is a foreign language. known and understood.ondy’hy a small
fraction of the population. and existing in the midst of the peeple
with a universal common language.

It is the sign language more than arwthing else. it is
claimed. that makes the deaf a class apart. and that builds up among
them a feeling of clannishness. It accentuates and emphasizes. the
argument continues. a particular bodily infirmity.

The sign language. with little relationship to the language
in use by the general population. is alleged to stand as a powerful

barrier to the acquisition.of any proper language. whether in its

 

1° Nelaon. Me Me

ll The ideas contained in the remaining discussion on Oral
thhod versus Sign Language are taken. for the most part. from.Best.

9-H. Mo. Chapter 33. pp. 516.568.

33
written or in its spoken form. It severely retards the use of language

in general use.

The importance of the ability to use speechand to read the
lips in human society cannot be minimized. As a medium of comxminica-
tion and intercourse employed among men. its value is so apparent that
there is no need to dwell upon it. Lip reading in itself is something
of incalculable benefit.

It is even asserted that the oral method. when brought into
use. cannot go along with the sign language. Wherever the sign
language is even tolerated. the use of speech and speech reading can
hardly make ary substantial headway. Unless signs are rigidly barred.
the deaf will speedily relapse into them -- and into 'nntism.‘ Among
the deaf the sign language constitutes much the quicker and easier
means of commrnication. requiring little of the careful. painstqking
effort that speech and speech reading do; if indulgence in the former
is allowed. there will be prompt falling back upon it. to the serious
or iven irremediable detriment of speech. The acquisition of speech.
alms relatively a wery difficult thing in itself. can make little
progress in a sign language environment ; often. in such an environ-
ment. it is hardly believed worth the attempt.

If the deaf have their vocal organs whole and intact. they
should be put to use. Muteness is an unnecessary handich when speech
is possible.

The defenders of the sign language. on the other hand.

insist that no method of communication be used to the detriment of

3A
'the sign language; that there is a definite place for it in their lives.

To the deaf. spoken language is simply a series of signs.
The whole process is. in a sense. superficialzz speech is too closely
bound up with the hearing.

Lip reading. which in a sense is separate from the ability
to use speech. likewise has serious drawbacks and limitations. Apart
from the acquirement of the aapacity to understand what is being said
by watching the motions of the month. there are certain essentials
involved: nearness to the speaker. distinct and not too rapid enunci-
ation on the part of the speaker. and good light upon his face. At
best. the process is attended with a strain. not only upon already
heavily used eyes. but upon the general nervous system as well.

Especially with the congenitally deaf and with those losing
hearing very early in life. nothing can take the place of signs or
can serve so fittingly as a means of mental develOpment. With the
great number of the deaf. there is nothing in the way of a substitute
for the sign language as a means of instruction.

Even though the sign language is different from that of
the general papulation. the deaf consider it indispensable to them;
in their contacts with one another nothing can take its place.

It is stated that the deaf. who have to live their lives
and to fight their battles in the world about them. are in the only
position to know what is best for their own benefit and advantage.
They are the ones who are most able to judge in a matter that is so

vital to them. The decision. they say. man best be left in their hands.

35
The deaf claim. moreover. that the sign language does not get

a fair hearing with the public. It is not appreciated. and its use-
fulness is not realized. It is widely misunderstood. and often grossly
misrepresented.

Thus. there is. say the defenders of the sign language., an
overvaluation set upon the speech afforded in its schools. It is
not given its proper place in what the deaf person should have.

Speech is not to be regarded as coming first in a deaf person' life.
but rather ability to understand written language and vocational
training. or fitness for usefulness. happiness. and economic well-
being in later life.

m sgeore m Residentgg; Schools.12 The great
argument for the day school is that it is not well that children be
'1nstitutionalized.’ The attitudes and the practices of the institu-
tions are regarded as at variance with those of the normal life which
should be enjoyed by all children. It is the home which should be the
center of the affection and interests and attachment of the child. not
an institution. The character and influence of the family must be
maintained unimpaired. No solution of our educational or other
problems is acceptable if in the end it involves the breaking up or
weakening of the home.

More specific charges are to be brought against the institu-

tion. The routine life and the associations of the institution are

 

12 c. c. Upshallo mmwwmm
M. Teachers College. Columbia University. Contributions to Educa-

tion. No. 199. 1929.

36
likely to have an effect not altogether wholesome upon the growing
child. Here. life is made too easy and too carefree., and not suf-
ficiently strenuous and enterprising; and the activities and the
difficulties of the outside world are too little perceived. Mich
of the life of the institution is nachine-like. Througi the discipline.
which is a necessary feature of its life. mch of the spontaneity of
growing childhood is impaired or destroyed.

With the deaf child. attendance at the day school does not
mks him a stranger in his own home and in his own domestic circles.
while there is kept alive on all sides a feeling of family responsi-
bility. The arrangement is more acceptable to the child's parents.
and they become more willing to have their child at school. with the
result that a greater number of deaf children are induced to enter
school than could be prevailed upon to seek admittance at an institu-
tion.

The day school. at the same time. bech a part of the
known educational system. The public. in general. becomes more reaw
to regard the special school for the deaf in its proper light and in
a proper manner; it becomes better acquainted with the possibilities
and the limitations of the deaf. The day school is coordinated or
joined with the regular public school order. standing on a level with
the state's other schools. Deaf children. for their part. better come
to feel their place. not only in their schooling. but in the general

normal world.

The case against the day school for the deaf rests upon

37

the circumstance that the deaf form. educationally. a special class.
which must be reached by unusual methods. Tb them.the large central
institution offers advantages not likely to be had elsewhere. For

this reason. the argument against the institution cannot well apply.

In the Operation of the day school. extraordinary duties
are imposed upon the regular schools in the providing of special
equipment and facilities. including teachers. It remains a question.
moreover. just how far children.who are deer are received into full
understanding and comradeship with their hearing and speaking fellows
in the classroom and on the playground. or how far they are really
absorbed into the ranks of the latter.

Except in large cities where pupils may come in from a side
contributing territory. most day schools.must have comparatively few
pupils. In none but the largest schools can well-graded classes he
expected. with a place for every pupil according to his needs. bright
or dull. quick to learn or slow. or with anything like the individual
attention that is so often necessary. A.pupil in a small day school.
if not neglected to some extent. may be required to do work for which
he is quite unfitted. being either beyond it or incapable of it. The
backward child will be the worst sufferer; for if there are few classes
he can get little of the special notice he needs; and his progress
cannot be the same as when in a class of like pupils and.unler an
apprOpriate and patient teacher.

In the institution. the children may be under intelligent

supervision and direction their entire thme. with proper provision

38
for stuw and for all else that is called for in their well-rounded
developnent. something not to be looked for in may homes.

In association with children of similar condition. there
is supplied an intellectual stimulus otherwise largely denied; and
helpful influences upon adolescent life are exerted that elsewhere
would be absent. Outside the institution. ready means of comzmintcation
with others are for the most part lacking. Even though deaf children
can and do mingle with their hearing acquaintances. they cannot get
so much zest or happiness out of their sports and intercourse as they
can with their own deaf comrades; and. while no matter what their
surroundings are. the difficulties of most of them in mastering
language will never be overcome. still in contacts with similar deaf
children the tendency will be for them to become more and more like
the normal in their mental actions.

In the home. there can be no great assurance of assistance
in preparation of lessons and in other matters pertaining to the re-
ceiving of an education. The growing child. now being able fully to
comprehend the forces that surround him as the hearing child does.
may the more easily fall under unwholesome influences. In the in-
stitution. there can be suitable discipline. regular occupation at
school work. enlightened general supervision. and coordiantion in all
that is concerned in the child's proper development.

Again. the attention that is given in an institution with
a considerable number of pupils to the learning Of a trade means much

more to a deaf child than it could to any other. In an institution.

39
there will usually be found more equipment. fuller apparatus. and more

varied lines than are possible in any but a very large day school; and
in its trade departments habits of industry are formed. talents and
aptitudes recognized and develOped. a knowledge of mechanics and the
use of tools implainted. and an appreciation of the part to be played
in the great world of industrial activity.

Nor should we lose sight of the fact that. although there
may be a growing adverse sentiment toward institutional life as a
substitute for life in the home. there is increasing social questioning
as to the advisability of a child's remining inia particular home if
his progress in the social organization is retarded.

Hence. we are told that no matter how strong and valid are
the theoretical objections to the institution. it occupies a position
of demonstrated usefulness for may at least.

25291313. 2.22. 91 W. The aim of education is now
rarely expressed in terms of the achievement of a certain degree of
skill. The aim Of education is very often said to be the production
of an integrated personality. or the development of a well-adjusted
individual. In psychological toms. this means a greater emphasis
upon the non-intellectual traits of the personality as ppposed to the
more purely intellectual traits. The school situation must help the
child learn how to adjust himself adequately to his environment: how
to adjust to his teacher. his classmates. the members of his family.
to society in general. It must help to strengthen. or lessen or

preserve intact. such personal traits as aggressiveness and surmis-

'\

ho
siveness. extroversion and introversion. and general emotional stability.
It must help the child destroy the causes for needless fears and useless
superstition“: .It must try to lay a foundation for desirable wishes
and ambitions. It must also help to lav the foundation for desirable
attitudes toward the multifarious facets of our life. toward nature
and animals. toward work and play. toward war and peace. toward social
Justice and injustice.”

To educate a deaf child has hover meant merely to teach him
so much knowledge. It has meant. rather. to help build a well-adjusted
individual. The very fact that the pupils in our schools for the deaf

have a major handicap has. from the very first. centered the attention
of teachers of the deaf upon the all-important problem of helping the

deaf child fit himself for a happy and useful place in the world.

 

13 R. Pintner. 'Latest Phases of Psychological Testing with
the Deaf.’ America m_ of g M. Vol. 82. No. 1;. September. 1937.
Ppo- 327-323.

CHAPTER?
SOCIABILITY OF THE DEAF

m W. Some people have Opposed societies
composed exclusively of the deaf because it was felt that the deaf
should not be segregated from the rest of the population. A particular
objection is that. unless discouraged. the practice will cause inter-
marriage among the deaf. which may result in an increase in their
number}

In combating this tendency of the deaf to organise among
themselves. we are sometimes unmindful of an elemental principle in
human society: that like-minded persons are prone to congregate.
and will seek to fonn associations to promote their mutual enjoyment
of life and to protect their common interests. The deaf themselves
claim that. as the fact of their infirmity forbids them belonging
generally to societies for the hearing. they are thus forced to band
together. or else to go without the associations that form such a
valuable part of life.2 It my be added that today objections to
organizations among the deaf have largely ceased to be voiced.

Wherever a number of the deaf are congregated. some such
organization is likely to be effected. In urban centers. more than

a few may be found. planned perhaps on different lines or appealing

to different interests. In some societies among the younger members.

 

1 Beat. 220 £10. p. 352a
2 I210 23:10

11.2

athletics may constitute a prominent feature. this being something that
readily appeals to the deaf. and perhaps at times furnishing a means
by which competition may be engaged in with hearing groups. It may
be added that the deaf. as a rule. make use of whatever facilities for
athletics or outdoor sports are available. They may even be said to
have a particular zest for such things;3

One must allow for the fact that every deaf person with any
objective survey of his own situation must realize that in social
relations with hearing peOple he is at a disadvantage. He will
usually succeed in making real contacts only insofar as he proceeds
slowly and feels out the reactions of the other person as he goes.
This approach may be considered as one of caution rather than suspicion.
and may easily be a matter of tact and intelligence in meeting the
situation.

0n the other hand. in every city. there are enough deaf
peOple so that they can remain within groups of their own for the
major part of their social life. Within such groups. one finds that
conmunication is usually by some form of manual system. signs. finger
spelling. or a combination of the two. For the people who confine
their social life to such groups. the strain of adjustment may often

be less.“

 

3 mg... p. 162.
ll Holder and Heider. 91.. 9;}... p. 120.

1&3
What is hard for the deaf to bear goes far beyond the incon-

veniences of being deaf or the inability to keep in touch with other
peOple in conversation. Many of the deaf seem to mind most the fact
that they are unlike other people and are condidered different by. them.
Among those who mention this aspectof their handicap are those who
have been deaf from birth or early childhood as well as those who
have known the transition fmm normal hearing to deafness.-IS

W m. The deaf are far more likely to choose for
their partners in marriage persons who are deaf like themselves than
they are to choose persons who can hear. The reasons for the generally
happy unions of the deaf with the deaf have been thus stated:

Where both husband and wife are deaf. they are united
by the strong bond of mutual fellowship and sympathy growing
out of their similar condition. which has alrean been men-
tioned as the principal reason why the deaf generally prefer
to marry one another rather than hearing persons. or seek
their partners from their own ranks. They are able to com-
municate with each other with perfect ease and freedom. The
most intimate social relations and sympathies of both. out-
side the domestic circle. are with the same class of persons.
In marriages in which one of the partners is deaf and the
other a hearing person. the first of these ties is always
lacking. and the second and third are often ladking to a
greater or less extent. Even under the less favorable
conditions the mutual love of husband and wife may be.
and often is. agrong enough to render the union a very
happy one. . e

 

5 Ibide. 1). 92s

6 E. A. Fay. "Marriages of the Deaf in America.‘ p. 121.
cited by Berry Best. 93. 93.. p. 188. - .

CIRPTER VI

THE ADJUSTMENT INVENTORY

head :21: an Adamant. Mo Due to the tremendou-
complexity of understanding the psycholog of the deaf. there is a

definite need for more intensive research to ascertain the nature
and relationships of factors underlying the personality adjustments
of the deaf.

The application of a self-descriptive questionnaire to
deaf subjects may be particularly revialing since the psychology of
the deaf is probably different frnm that of the hearing.

If psychological differences between the deaf and the
hearing are regarded as minimal. the fact ranains that deafness is
a handicap which. irrespective of endowment. education. and indivi-
dual success in surmounting it. subjects its victims to certain dif-
ficulties that are rarely paralleled in the lives of those with
nonnal hearing. Therefore. the content of questionnaire items may
suggest different meanings for deaf and hearing groups. and the
responses to them. whether different or alike. may not hold the
same significance. Again. because of dissimilarities in environment.
the deaf and the hearing as groups may employ unlike mechanisms of
behavior adjustment for the attainment of equally happy results.

_Sg_t_1_l;<_:.e_s_ 9; Inventor! m. Inventory questions were
fomlated while observing deaf pupils in variom situations at the

residential school in Flint. Michigan.1 A great many ideas were

 

1 See Footnote 1 on p. 12.

45
incorporated through work previously done in the field pertaining. ‘in

part or in whole. to the use of an adjustment inventory for the deaf.
Originally. this inventory contained 192 questions which were reviewed
and criticized by three members of the Flint school staff. Eventually.
through the helpful suggestions of these people and the afore-mentioned
observations. the inventory was narrowed down to 751 simplified questions.

Log 9; the W Qvegtog. ‘Ihe fem employed con-
tained 64 threefold multiple choice type questions and 13 completion
or essay type questions. The multiple choice questions were the only
ones scored. although the essay type questions. in many cases. were
very revealing for better insight into the student.

The 61; questions constituted the general adjustment score
(maximum 176 points). The test was categorized into four types of
adjustments: social. school. home. and emotional. Social adjustment
included 35 items. constituting a maximum score of 93; emotional
adjustment. 30 items. 81. points maximum score; school adjustment.
13 items for 35 points; and home adjustment. 9 items with a maximum
point value of 23.

Because of the restrictions imposed by the elementary
vocabulary and sentence structure of the inventory. several aspects-
of adjustment of probable uportance in a study of the psycholog
of the deaf could be touched upon only indirectly; among them.
feelings of inferiority. suspicion. and masculinity-femininity.

_'I_h__e_ m. The aim was to obtain subjects that would

be as representative as possible of deaf adolescents in special

46
schools for the deaf. For this reason. subjects were chosen from the
Michigan School for the Deer in Flint. Michigan. and the Detroit Day
School for the Deaf (Main Branch) in Detroit. Michigan. It was
originally thought that the Flint school would give an adequate cross-
section of deaf students living in smaller towns and rural areas. while
the Detroit school would be reasonably representative of urban-reared
children. It was also felt that these two schools would be repre-
sentative of similar schools throughout the United States. since the
Detroit school has the second largest enrollment of its kind in the
country and the Flint school is rated fourth largest.2 Hewever.
after screening the total enrollment of pupils between the ages of
13 to 20. those pupils were eliminated who had a hearing loss of
less than 65 decibels in their better ear or could hear speech with
or without a hearing aid.3 and had an achievement level below'3.5.
There were 25 subjects available at Flint. but only 7 at Detroit.
Therefore. the inventory was administered at both schools. but only
the material obtained from.Flint has been used statistically in this
paper. It was felt that the sample obtained at Detroit was too small
to be of any significant value.“

Records of recent date were available at the residential

school to indicate the amount of residual hearing by the 3-A.Audiometer.5

 

2 American.inna;§ 9;,phg_ggaf. Vbl. 95. Nb. 1. January. 1950.
3.Also verified by teachers' reports.

h Consult Table VIII for’mean scores obtained from.Detroit
day school.

5 Table IIe

h?

 

 

«99 3.? e2 - 13 an .3ch

«meme ¢A.~m «an t ms an exam
3.388 contenders

«3 3.3 swam .. «19 em 33c
on.a 3.5 no.8 . 2...: .3 .58 {so

3a.“... 3 .3 sea. is

 

 

gee.“ apnea-0H0: «den «0 $3.320 eeflafifindeamH was 9&4 deadwoaoaohno

Hg

‘ 0"

48

The intelligence quotients were determined by intelligence tests admin-
istered at the institution by the school staff. using the Pintner Non-
Ienguage Intermediate Lbntal Test.6 Age in years. at onset of deafness.
was obtained from the pupils' individual case files.7
W _o_f_ 113; W. The Adjustment Inventory
was administered to 1+1 boys and 31; girls at the Michigan School for
the Deaf at Flint on My 12. 1950. and to 2 boys and 5 girls at the
Detroit Day School for the Deaf on my 16. 1950.
1 At Flint. four groups. consisting of approximately 19
students each. were given the inventory. One and one-half hours
were allowed for each group to complete the inventory.8
The same interpreter remained with the author throughout
the day to interpret any of the questions which were not readily
understood by some of the subjects; for this interpretation. it was
nedessary to use signs as well as the manual alphabet. The interpreter
was one of the three staff members who had assisted in constructing
the inventory.
W W. Data relating to the inventory scores
of the students are presented in Table III. Boys averaged somewhat
higher than girls in all‘ aspects of adjustment. This is contrary to

results obtained in man previous eXperiments with the deaf.9 The

 

6 Table 1e-
7 Table II.

8 The time was found to be quite sufficient.

9 my anachvis. ammmw o i menisci
Deaf Children. pp.. 35-37..

1&9

 

Q3.

°.
“as

'4'“;
0

me. .n .m

13.3 5.:

Tm o o . swarm
.833 no sense «Season 5 .3

omd .a .m

.83 g

a} .. e sense

a Anne heaven as maiden omen hem

 

2m n 5 33¢

 

 

. c3 u 5 seem .233.»

 

 

 

 

 

 

venues eases-ego: «sen no 333933.33

Hung

.‘v- ti- -.'

50

 

 

m . an...“ mm .. m an 33m

«New «1... mm .. a. 3 ”seem
Scans—ans seem

9.3 3A.. 3 u “a an ...n.§e

4.1% «13 «ram .3 seem
33523 1.838s

«his. 9.» 2. .. en an .28
36mm. on.a Q. t mm .3 imam -
Search? «recon

8.8 RA «m - me am 33o

3.8 SA on t i: 3 seem
£85334 sooner.

mines «9? n9 .. 8 an 3.8

3.2: no.8 ems .. no 2 seem
assess-33 236
5.: seahorse e353 owe-m ~35: asses one 8.2 secs

 

 

5.3935 escape—ens no eases-ado: «sea «a enoem

Hung

51
most significant difference appeared in emotional adjustment. where
the boys' mean score was approximately five points above the girls'
mean. On the whole. howeter. the critical ratios of the sex dif-
ferences are not statistically reliable.

Inter-correlation of the adjustment scores appear in
Table IV. .Highest inter-correlation occurs between social and
emotional adjustment. / .68. lowest correlation appears between
social and home adjustment. I .23. The Student-Fisher t Test for
the hypothesis that the correlation between social and home adjust-
ment 3 0 is rejected at the 5% significance level but not at the 1%
level (t = 2.02).. Using emotional adjustment as the dependent factor.
a multiple correlation coefficient of .78 was found as the correlation
between emotional adjustment and the other three factors (social. home.
and school).

W 9; in; Igventog. In a test for reliability. the
coefficient of eqdivalence was obtained by the Spearmaantown formula
for estimating reliability from two comparable halves of a test. Rs-
liability coefficients were also obtained for the four adjustment
categories of the inventory. the lowest of which was./'.69 for home
adjustment and the highest. f'.82 for emotional adjustment.10 Re-
liability data for sexes are to be found in Table VI. The adjustment
inventory was correlated with age and intelligence quotient and found
to have a slight. but statistically reliable. tendency to be associated

with relatigoly higher chronological age and intelligence.

 

10 Thble'v.

52

deaegoueneau u Enough women s

 

S. .— mm. mm. x engine 8am

33.. recesses saucepan

3. a 8. mm. x seamenfi seem

2.. in mm. 8. \ engafiaaoflofl
3:: «c.5334 deacon

2. a 3. «a. x sandman: 98m

mm. a in. em. x 2.533 incense

3. a me. am. o. 3.333 season

as»? surgeons. noose».

 

endeared .a...
a»? Hate “me one 3 an. a 5
vengeance echoem

333% an. "a an. S
333500
E
bounced.” egg on» so season nausea: no soapsaeahoeaeafl

mbH a

53

 

 

8. \ ma paoEnnnS 38»
«o. x on 32533 338$
ms. \ ma anofluami 338.
$. \ ¢ 3855.3 28m
5. x 3 «3533 238
3333.8 ....-§»H
bade-3.x «0 .84 «can.
H332

. .. , H . ,. .. . . . . .. ., .. , ,
Sumo-£03 «8n «8 handgun anofiuAuq on» no 3333an

b an.

5h

 

 

h bwfindddcm

Ado. x «ncma nu.maa mm: a aw an quanfia
ma. \ mo.ou o¢.ooa mma - no a: .mum
. . 6283
now 3 . MO 03 z .9580

 

0.30m @35an

 

aaua hudaapuaaam -- .aaoou.aou< «age nag “noaaopaH aqaauusnuq

Hbg

WWI

Adjustment Inventory Correlated Iith
Age and Intelligence Quotient

 

 

Correlation
Measures 00179181“ Coefficients
(N 8 75)
General Adjustment with:
Chronological 130 it '27
Intelligence 1‘ .29
School Adjustment with:
Chronological Age 1‘ ~19
Intelligence I '22
Social Adjustment with:
Chronological A80 I ’20
Intelligence 1‘ '19
Enotional Adjustment with:
Chronological 180 I ’21
Intelligence , It '18
Home Adjustment with:
Chronological Ago I‘ ’17

Intelligence I .11;

 

55

56

M g; the, W. me to the possible subjectivity
or lack of adequate knowledge regarding‘the subjects. teacher rating
scales were not employed. One recent study of the ability of high
school teachers to rate personalities of pupils showed a reliability
which was discouragingly low.11 Therefore. in attempting to determine
the validity of this inventory, it was felt that ratings from a group
composed of three probably impartial personnel members at the instituo
tion might be more reliable than the customary teacher-rating method.
These staff members consisted of (l) The School Psychologist. (2) A
male instructor who became deafened at age 16; he later received his
MA. in Counseling and Guidance. and (3) a female instructor who has
had numerous years of experience teaching the deaf in Flint. All
three had more individual contact with the students in the various
capacities of interviews.. testing, guidance and counseling than have
the respective teachers; and, in the opinion of the author, their
backgrounds in psycholoy should render their judgnent more reliable.

Using the ratings of the selected staff as the criteria.
the validity coefficient was found to be 158. Correlation was higher
with girls than with boys betwaen the rating and adjustment score.

W 9_f_' 3.921 M. The results of the item analysis
are presented in Table DC. They indicate the number of students giving

the particular reply to the various questionnaire items.

 

11 Olive L. Ives, 'A Critique of Teachers' Ratings as an
Indication of later Am Neuropsychiatric Rejection.‘

57

and: no sees a s3-
mméa .. 3.3 $8.6 no .38 .3 3&3888 .

 

8.3 mm - S a. paces-33 8cm
$.94 «a. u 3 s 23333 333%
8.8 me u 3. a. 2352.3 ”Soon
43h. mm .. S a. aeQESaS 330m
8&3 and - «.2 a. seaasafi 388

 

cease 9352 ~84 :39

.38 33 «on .388. ea 38...}.

HHHb g

58
TABLE E

ITEM ANALYSIS OF ADJUSTMENT INVENTORY

7. Do you hate people who tease you about being deaf?
18 Yes
__2.L_ No

22 Sometimes

8.. Does it make you unhappy when someone tells you that you are
doing something the wrong way?

a; Yes
g No
33 Sometimes

9. Do you ask your teacher to help you when you do not understand
your lesson?

9,6 Yes
1 No

___2§__ Sometimes--

10. Does it mains you angry when people tell you how you should do
a thing? '

 

10 Yes
_3L_ N0
31 Sometime

11. Are you nervous or afraid when you are near your teachers?
1 Yes.
6.5 No
2 Sometimes

59

12. Does it make you nervous or angry when other peOple tell you
what you should do?‘

5 Year.
38 No
31 Sometimes
13. Does it make you nervous to have a teacher call on you?
2 Yes. i
48 No
11 Sometimes

114. Do you feel afraid or nervous when you have to speak or write
on the blackboard in your schoolroom?

2 Yes
53 No
29 Sometimes

15. In school. do you like talkkng in front of all the class?

38 Yes
20 No

LIZ Sometimes

16. Do you feel sad when you get low marks in school?
31 Yes .
$3 No
25 Sometimes

17. Do your teachers like you?

 

__23__ My teachers like me very much.
L9 Sometimes my teachers like me.
1 W teachers do not like me.

60
18.- Do you like your teachers?‘
30 I like my teachers very much.
13 Sometimes I like nnr teachers.
2 I do not like m teachers.
19. Do you like school?

LY”.
6 No

22 Sometimes
20. Are you happy in school?

_25_-_ Y“ .
6 No

ML Sometimes;

21. Do you like your classmates?

 

 

33 I like all nw classmates.
’33 I like some of my classmates.
_3__ I do not like any of 1w classmates.

25. Do you like to be at home when you are not in school?

___3,§__ Yes;-
lé NO
g; Sometimes
26. Do you like to fight?
2 I like to have mamr fights.
16 I like to have a few fights.
__5§__ I do not like to figlt.

27.

28.

30-

31.

32.

33-

Do you fight with your friends?
__2__ I have many fights with w friends.
__35__ Sometimes I fight with my friends.
38 I do not fight with nut friends.

Are you afraid to talk to a stranger?

1 Yes
__’ih._ N0
_33__ Sometimes
Are you afraid when you have to go to the doctor?
1 Yes
32 No
a Sometimes
Do you feel pity for all the deaf peOple in the world?
. 32 Yes i
13 No
1.3 Sometime
Do you get angry very easily?
3 Yes I
34 No
38 Sometimes
Do you like to see other boys and girls fight?
. 30 Yes V
51], No
10 Sometimes

61

62

314.. Do you like to talk to hearing peOple?‘

_.!19__ YO!
.___Ji___le
30 Sometimes

35. When you buy things. do you find it hard to make people in stores
understand you?

22 'Yes
.__11___.Nb
M Sometimes
36. Do you have friends who can talk and hear?
gz I have new friends who can talk and hear.
46 I have a few friends who can talk and hear.
3 I do not have amr friends who can talk and hear.

3?. Do you think that hearing peeple misunderstand what you mean when
you tell them you want something?

13 Yes

13 No

yé Sometimes
38. Do you want to have friends?

0 I do not want to have friends.

 

11 I want to have one or two friends.

61 I want to have many friends.

39. Are you afraid of getting lost when you go out alone?

__1L_ Y0-
13 no
.__;UE__.. Sometimes

63,
no. Do you think that everyone hates you?‘
~ _L__ Yes .
__33_ N0
___3§__ Sometimes
I41. Do you feel embarrassed because you are deaf?
__13__ Yes
33 No
__29__ Sometimes
#2. Do you often feel sad?
I 12 Yes' 1
_fl;_ N0
38 Sometimes
AB. Do you feel lonesome. even when you are with peeple?
13 Yes I
g); No
36 Sometimes
h6.. Do you like to read?
‘ ___53___ Yes -
___9._ N0
g; Sometimes
11.7.. Which of these do you like best?
g2 sign language '

_23___ lip reading and oral method

___2_‘1___ manual alphabet

AB. Are you afraid of many things?

4 I am afraid of mew things.
L6 I am afraid of some things.
g5 I am not afraid of anything.
50. Do you feel sad if other people do not like you?
___15__ Yes
g; No
33- Sometimes.
51.. Are you Jealous of hearing people?
1 Yes '
50 No
23 Sometimes
52. Do you feel sad because you are deaf or hard of hearing?
‘ 16 Yes -
3§ No
g3 Sometimes

53. Do you wish that you could hear?

4-— Yes
8 No

1§ Sometimes
51;. Do you think that people laugh at you because you are deaf?
I _13__ Yes -
23 No
3§ Sometimes

 

55-

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

6.5
Do other boys and girls like you?
. 24 Boys and girls like me very much.
' 51 Sometimes boys and girls like me.
0 Boys and girls do not like me.

Do you like your father?

51 I like my father very much.
12 Sometimes I like nw father.
I do not like an father.

0
E W father is not living.

Do you like your mother?

63 I like nnr mother very much.
8 Sometimes I like my mother.
0 I do not like nv mother.

3 W mother is not living.

Does your father like you?

___5_§__ W father likes me very much.
13 Sometimes 12w father likes me.
0 W father does not like me.
6 W father is not living.

 

 

 

Does your mother like you?

62 My mother likes me very much.
8 Sometimes m mother likes me.
O W mother does not like me.

1 My mother is not living.

Do you like your brothers and sisters?

 

 

_5.5___ I like my brothers and sisters very much.
1A Sometimes I like my brothers and sisters.
0 I do not like my brothers and sisters.
5 I not have any brothers or sisters.

 

Do your brothers and sisters like you?

_51,_ W brothers and sisters like me very much.
1Q Sometimes my brothers and sisters like me.
0 W brothers and sisters do not like me.

__5____ I do not have any brothers or sister.

 

66
62. Do you like your home?
__51_ I like m home very much.
__2_2__ Sometimes I like my home.
__2__ I do not like am home.
63. Do you plw with other boys and girls?

60 Yes

 

0 No

15 Sometimes
6h. Do you like to help other people?

0 No

a Sometimes
65. Which do you like best, to work alone or with other peeple?

 

 

_13__ I like to work with other peeple.
111 I like to work alone.

Sometimes I like to work alone. and sometimes I
like to work with other peeple.

66. Do you like sports better than reading?

10 Yes
_3._. N0
26 Sometimes

67.. Do you like to meet new people?

40 Yes
1 No
31. Sometimes

67
68.. When you meet new pe0ple., can you become friends with them easily?
_31__ Yes: .
_.§._ No
13 Sometimes
69. Do you like to go to parties?
I 30 I like to go to man parties.
33 I like to go to a few parties.
A, I do not like to go to parties.
70. Do you like to go to parties with hearing peeple?‘
‘ 1§ Yes
13 No
33 Sometimes

71’. At a party, do you talk to many peOple or do you talk only to a
few friends?

g6 At a party. I talk to many people.
M At.a party. I talk only to a few friends.
3 At a party. I do not talk to anyone.

72. Are you a leader of games at a party?

12 Yes.
22 No
31 Sometimes
73. Do you like to dance?
6 __5.2_ Yes 6
3 No
11 Sometimes

68

71;. Do you like to be popular at dances and parties?

__zz__ Yes
12 No
35 Sometimes
75. Are you popular at dances and parties?
__g1_ Yes
g; No
31 Sometimes
76. Do younger boys and girls have more fun than you do?
21 Yes -
11 No
33 Sometimes
77. Do you like to be alone?
_5___ I like to be alone most of the time.
Q Sometimes I like to be alone.
_L I do not like to be alone.

69
CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSIONS

An.original adjustment inventory was given to Z5 deaf
adolescents at the Nfichigan School for the Deaf in Flint. Nflchigan.

i reliability coefficient from the two halves of the in-
ventosrvwas found to be .87. Reliability coefficients were found
to range from .82 for Emotional Adjustment to .69 for Home Adjust-
.ment. Reliability coefficient for the boys was .85 and .81 for
the girls.

The validity of the adjustment scores was considered on
the basis of a correlation with the ratings obtained from.a trained
staff of three. The Correlation coefficient was found to be .58;
low. but statistically significant and of definite predictive value.

Intercorrelations among the subtests of the inventory were
low. the lowest being .23 between social and home adjustment. The
highest correlation.was 168 between social and emotional adjustment.

The mean snore for boys was higher on all subtests than
for girls, although the difference was not statistically reliable
on all tests. .

There was a low. but positive. relationship between in-
creaeingly better adjustment scores and higher chronological age and
I.Q,

This group of subjects did not appear to be emotionally

disturbed within their own environment; rather, they scored quite

average for both emotional and social adjustments.

Results seem to indicate that the inventory differentiates
between students at the lower end of the adjustment scale more so
than at the upper end. There do not seem to be any deviates from
the norm at the upper end of the adjustment scale; rather. a
clustering around the mean.which is carried out almost to the
end of the curve.

The language handicap was not.met as well as had been
expected in spite of all the time spent on test construction.
However. results point to the fact that language tests can be
used with the deaf and the closer we come to presenting more con-
crete questions to the deaf at a level which they can.understand.
the sooner we will obtain a better insight into the psychology of
the deaf. With this information at hand. the teacher of the deaf
might have a more fundamental starting point from.which to begin
in attempting to socialize seer students .

We cannot say what is nomal for the deaf person until we

know what tensions and problems his situation involves.

7O

BIBLIMRLPHY 71
A. BOMB

Boat. Harry. mammnmmm meme
The lamina]: Calm. 1911.3.

Bran-chug. imam mmwmmmm
New York City: Teachers College Contributions to Education.

No. 687. 1936.

Coldstein. m A..: m 91, m m. St. Louis: The Iamgossope
Press., 1933s .

mesons" WWKWMMM
. New York: Teachers College. Columbia University..
193 .

moses. 3.. mmMmmmmmm New York:
Teachers College. Columbia University. 1931.

Menninger. K. A.. m M M. Alfred A. Knapf. Inc.. 1930.

Pintner. 8.. J. Eisenson. and K. Stanton., I“, W 2:. the.

W W. New Yorks. I. S. Crofts e 00..
1911.1.

mmsdell. D. A... 'The Psychology of the Hard of Hearing and Deafened
Adult..'-m and W. New York:- Mirrey Hill Books.
l9h7e . .

Upshen. c. 0.. mmemmm- New
York: Teachers College. Columbia University. Contributions

to Education No. 11.99. 1929.

wen... H. 3.. mwmmmmw
m m 2:. m my... Teachers College. Columbia
University. Contributions to Education No. 545. 1932.

3.. PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Baldwin. mrgaret. 'The Psychology of Deafness.‘ W W
132. October., 1923. . .

Bradford. C. A.. 'The Salary Status of Teachers of the Deaf in
America.“ mum Annals at the. Eat. Volo 89-19%.

. .
.. .
‘- \ O. .
O o. \ ' ‘ q‘ 7 . n . ‘ ‘
0. e '. .~ ‘ I ~ - _ - C
.I- DOO-w .0--. O Coo-o 0“ DC. 0 D..- "- - o . - a g
o. > , .
O 4- J. Q . L- x . . .. . . .
. w. _ _. . ' 1 J A V
g. . i s. . . ‘ ~~ - .eJ g
o-~-...e- .7 s-- -. -.~.--— vie -o»o-.—- .“OQ I O -O-- I‘
l . . , ‘ . . _ .- o ’ f .’ e .
.I .,,s ,_ ‘ .J , ~ . ‘ .. . 4_I Q ‘l" A . In- .
'. '.
ol C .. g . e .
. ‘ ~
‘ e e I .
1. .. . . I «. . a O O... I . i . \- . .0. ~' O ~
‘ ' .- --a e e . pc- eo- o-ue ~-
' — .
O I. ' a . . A
k .. ' ' 4 . ~ . . e .
4 n . . l . . ‘ -4 -. '
”.Iu-o. -o—u- u—v-cn -.-...— e .- .naon- ---d - -‘4-.-..-h——.Il
t ‘ t. '. e n O 1‘ ' 9
. e I. ‘ t. s . . - ~' - C . ' '
Q' t ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ ‘ V ‘ a--. - on
.\. .
a
D. . .l
e I . - . e I .
O -. | ' A .z .. .a - x . ‘ .. . . - 4 e -~ . '.
- 0- O 0--00 -c- e e r . . o n-r- b- --.o.- a -pue on 0“--
. s . . v-
. . . . ll ‘ 1
.J a. ' u-eg b~ n 'I‘\ . | \ . _. B .s. . \In' A
4
l " I
I . . . ' s
. - O . - . 4 O - -.I-'a .. .-. s 00‘ ..n a
Q ' -V- .9“--. —-.. . .
o-
’ I. 1 i .
~.- ‘ . . e . ' a so .a. .4 . . . ,. . u
0- - cu- .‘s q-.. a... J. _ ' ' ‘ ' ‘ . ..
-. . _ A I.
.0 \ .-\ .,.i, o». o. e- -.. .-». o. . *oL --.. .
- ..-.-..u.e—- use non-out.-
' I
.
.4 ,- .
n - , e
-r '4 . o ‘- o . . '
t ‘1 'u J “ i 1 Q o M
'- 1' L v’ -- x - .- \ a .. e . i . .0 . . 'J
' ‘ .N' O V‘0 . v' I \f -
_.,_.~ 4! e O» '. - .\ a ,. l - s - .U.| ’ “
0—. ‘..—0- n- - Hes-us-..-
l
I
C e
, . .
, r a sf : ' " ' ..
o - . - .l c . . . ‘ a. .. ‘ '0 0‘ g
on. I — CF- --’ -C - -O‘-’ -C- "'
e ‘ . . . . ‘ _n . ‘.'.
, n.e .. ' .‘. . . I e ‘ -"..- a- O .a- o
, .. ..
~-. I e .r . '. a
. ‘o _‘ . e . O A.’ J-ke 6.“ .. \s
, .
. - , . I
.. I. l , 4 o ,' .pi ‘ . '
.. .. s
I 1‘. ‘ .s . J \ . 1A- 4 \1‘. . . ' ‘ -e 'O I. .
-fi- --C--- ...¢e.- ‘- 0‘.“ -----~ ..~.”.-. -— u.-.’-e-.--- Q-“
7' . . s-
“ . - \' ' . I1 ' ~ '. . " I ‘ ‘ '0 ‘
‘ e \' . c . ~ . \a ‘4'. . - . e O--~
spa-_oe “.- n....- -9-4 on--- 5....
J - » . ~ . .
_ f . ... . . ' “-J -v’ .
.uv £1 . u . e ‘-‘~L~ -‘ F1. ..\ .L .A .J .‘J x \ .~ - I '..
\ «-
' '7 '1 T e v e
_ ‘ _ ‘ C.
~ -\—- . e a \ .4 s ... . O .
I. ' J . 5' ' 1 , ' .. f '. ' it I O c .
~~ ~- ~.- , n- a e . . - V. ’
',‘n_..’ _v-_;_ _‘_’ 9» is .. t a.. .... 0' Q i.
. . r-
1 ' '
O J, . ~.- .1. ... _L.
' ' I ' ' s' e .
. ; or n. . .-.-‘ '. 'r- - “ '
.. . .. a .u . ‘. a .... e... O. .a.-.
o — ‘ . . ..
- . .
' IV ' e‘ 'r
O, - ‘— ' ‘ 0.3. I . . - , 5._ ‘ . ‘ fl .. _ .‘. _ _,. ' I.
-. .0- --— ‘- O‘- -V-.‘ -‘OO-.I‘J-—

 

I
I!

72

Bradwey., Katherine Preston., 'The Social Competence of Deaf Children. .'
mm stile. M Vol. 82. No. 2..nereh..1937o .

Brill. 1%. 'Mentai Persians of the Dean! American Annals. 2:. m M
Vol. 79. 1934.

Bur-chard. Edward M. L... and Helmer R. Wklebust” 'A Comparison of
Congenital and Adventitious Deafness with Respect to Its
Effect on Intelligence. Personality. and Social hhturityu-
Part 13 Intelligence!' American Annals. 9:. the. Deaf.- Vols 87.
1911.2. ’ ‘ .. .

Burchard., Edward M. I... and Helmer R. Wklebust. “A Comparison of
Congenital and Adventitious Deafness with Respect to Its
Effect on Intelligence. Personality. and Social mturityo-
Part II: Social Maturitn' American must. the. hat.
Vol. 87. No. 3. my. 1942..

Burchard. Edward M. I... and Helmer R. Wklebust. 'A Comparison of
Congenital and Adventitious Deafness with Espect to Its
Effect on Intelligence. Personality. and Social Maturity--

Part IID: Permulity.‘ mm Assails. 2:. m. M
V01. 87. the he September. 19”.

Calkins. Earnest Elmo. 'On the Technique of Being Deaf.‘ mm
W 131:» 3W0 19230 .

Caplin. Daniel. 'A Special Report of Retardation of Children with
Impaired Hearing in New York City Schools.‘ W 49351.,
21113125197010 829 H). 30 Me 19370 ~

Day. II. 3.. I. S. Fusfeld. and R. Pintner. 'Survey of American Schools
for near. miss m 2; ma. Deaf.- v.1. 32.1927.

Doll. E. A.. 'Preliminary Standardization of the Vineland Social

Maturity Scale.‘ 9.1mm mm at. W
Vol. 3. 19360 a

Dell. Edgar A.. “The Inheritance of Social Competence.,' 193m 9:,
- M31. 701° 28. No.- 5. May. 1937- -

Fowler. Edmund. 'A Simple Method of Measuring Percentage of Capacity

for Hearing Speech.“ whim of. W Vol. 36
December. 19h2e

Frackelton. Berneda Pierson. 'Adjustment of the Deaf.‘ W
~ Levels 2:. the Rest.- -Vol- 89. 19M. -

73

Gay., thh C... 'A Case Study of Word Deafness.,' m m 2:, m
M. VOle 83. No. 2. m. 1938. ~ '

Goetzinger. Cornelius P. . u consideration of indionotrio Cnrvesin
Relation to Intelligihility for Speech.‘I m m 9:,
mm. VOle 92. me 3. w. 19h7e

Graham. Alva Whitcomb. 'Personal and Social Adjustment of High School
Students.,' m M Ma. Vol. 25. No. 8. October.. 191.7.

Gregory. Isobel. 'A Comparison of Certain Personality Traits and

Interests in Deaf and in Hearing Children.’ m m-
m Vol. 9. Lurch-December. 1938. -

Hainss. Cora in. mm. Effectmof Defective Hearing Upon the Individual
as a mailer of the Social Order.,' m M 2; m
39.9. m W. Vol. 22. 1927-1928.

Holder. 3.. and Grace M. Heider., “Studies in the Psycholog of the
Dean.“ W W Vol- 53. No. 5. 19111.

Jenkins. Marion. 'lbdern Trends in the Psycholoy of Madjusted

School Children.‘ 193m]. at. Ma m “L 23.
No.1. September. 1933.

Johnson. Elizabeth Hughes. "he Ability of Pupils in a School for the
Deaf to Understandflarions Methods of Comnmication--II..'

WM“mm 701.» 93s No. 30 We l9h80 -\

Kirk. Samel 1.. “Behavior Problem Tendencies in Deaf and Hard of

Hearinachildron.’ mam mu 2:. in Dent. Vol. 83.
me 2. M. 1938.

Levine. Edna Simn. 'Psychological Sidelights--'I'he Teacher's Role in
Pupil Dewelopment.‘ m m Min. Vol. 50. 1911.8.

Levine. Edna Simon. 'The Psychological Service Program of the
Lexington School for the M.’ m m gt, in
mg. Vol . 93. l9h8. . .

Lyon. V. I.. 'Personality Tests with the Deaf..' W m 21
m m Vol. 79., 1934. . ~

Iaron. Verne Wesley. “The Use of Vocational and Personality Tests with
U, the Deaf-hm mm 91. Applied W Vol. 18. 193k.

/,
: (fr-A..

lthherson. Jane 6.. and Helen S. Lane. 'A Comparison of Deaf and
Hearing on the Hickey Test and-on Perfomance Scales. '

mm m 91. m M. Vol. 93. 19%. ~

 

 

 

 

' A - ;
' l l' ‘ ' ‘ . .
.. _ . ,. .p , .__ _ . l - \y-sn -u..~\. ‘8 ..~ ow 1‘ Q . "
”94- -‘ -..-~-- ’0‘ .'.--IV .C‘ ‘
. I-
I ‘ I 1
.. . .. , .— OH' I . '
e . «- e . e ' 0 O '........-
. . I ' . '. ' '. e- . ‘2 ‘ f, . ‘ I
L‘ '4 :9 . ed -. s ..a. ;. .i’... .b-I-.a .. . 1 ~ J. .0 . 3 ....‘-.J. ~ . . . .— _\|
v. .__ .- . .a a ‘.. - rr‘ .1 " ' I ‘ ' '
.. .-. l. . .-Jl ....Jv- .- I r--.L..\..a _._.._ . “\ -
’1'. O” ae-I. -- -u‘ug- F' a..- J
.. ~ . - , _
. v . C .
. T ‘ . U - . . . .‘ . .J .0...” ~.--
' e ' ' p. 0" -
A . , . . s . . _ . .
1‘" -s » L. .. - \a... nu {J :4. ‘...' .. I. .‘-. - . 4 -. eJ - .. ....1-.
l
. r ' . < .- ' . IV . V . I. H ' 3
. - ‘ ..- . . i ' . - . \ ‘ ’ -
. n e '1' . ' v . ' ._. . ' 'uu-‘r— i.-e.--e— .‘nc'vs ' ‘
s’V' ; ' Vt" .r ‘ s ‘ ' . ' "‘ A . .e' ‘l ' 'I . ‘. 'T v' " I‘
Ho—n.‘ \; J '- IJ-. 5' .n .‘ . ‘L . « a . \l .a l 1 .- . a ‘ - . V 0-0 .- k | — ' ‘ a. ~ ~-
~. - r qr l '9 | . : . w " .' ‘“ ."' I
.L 'v w a .. .L. \— 'a. .. _. .i .. - -. _' ". .. a. . a. -‘.>\ A - Lu J .- J - . I a“
.--u.-- -‘—--
.
v I 6 ‘ N I
\. l _ ‘ . ‘ - O I J. . .
O . c v ' t - 9--- .1.
_l‘ a a X‘ I I . I . . . .- 5 _‘ f I . ' ‘._ I. ‘. f N . t. .7 'j
4.. .449 l ‘s -b¢ \' AU La 15! _- 0.- »aa.‘.. ‘ U- UV . .. ~" . i e -.) ' a ..4 . O . J .a\ .’. ekJ a.
- .. .. .. a . . . ' .. ..' .g' .a -'-. A ' U . .. no ~. -
_— ——-.e-.——- var-r—
e I '
. ‘ , 5 . '. r
d v 4
a- _..o J I ..-- " ' .
. i h J ' . .*-”.o--owu :-..-.... coo-w.»
_, T ’+.\- - '- .-~- ., .0 ._ ‘. . 3 - . _.‘ e . n, n
’a a . V. |- .L A h '6. '- lJ-k a. 4— K . .‘ I ~\..~ . *-J‘ a. a .- e - -. » - .‘ s. ' . . J .J .. .
‘ . . . .
Or A- 0'” r 01- v. 1'.- '7 ~ L " . ' ' ' " '14-;
. .. .A ‘ a. . o , .o.
' r a ' ~ .&&. '.-v..-..-‘-~-.-—Lu é.-- -~.-.o:—o fi“- .
‘ t. ' I ' I ' - - I ' .— ' 'I
' , . '.' . .‘ I . .1 l . r . I ‘. ' . '..
1.2“». . L . ... A - . 1‘ .5. l. -_ .-v .i. .. .- .. as..--r Kle- 'Ie .e-e-e- clue-l ~A--V
~ I - v
" el ‘5 ‘ - ’ - - , -I .; . Jr. .
--e v ‘ s.‘ ‘ ~ . ‘ ' 'o la ‘ ' a. . . AJev '
. cah- :'— “w“... .14--..— -.. mg... .‘0- on..." . ‘
. ‘ u'
.b ‘ q... f‘ .‘i -. \ u .
0“; ‘ L . a. , _ . ' . .fi . ...
r r . . , . ,.
H” t. l J. ' M ‘ l " '- ‘-‘ I 1, A .Q ' - ' ' [ rv-"rr
Vo- v ..-,-. \ '._ ‘ e.. i; , e . i L . .i c a. - .L ... (L s a . . so ~s ..'. . ...‘ .,'-, I. .u. ...\ Ugjll» Lo
' ' u . J ' ‘ I I
_, I v . v I ‘ 5’ D '5 -. ’ -‘- 9" .q . .
.*.I --J. .0 V .. . ‘- ' . \. A- 1 ..x\: \e t \_-’ \ LIN \ u- ‘ U. . ss‘fi- .Q'. ... —- ~\L
- w . “ - '
' ‘ l . . ‘ . ‘ I 0‘
.V.. l\"‘ ' ' a - Q‘ .‘ ' 0.. O . '. -. ... d . ' 5-] e a- A a-: . . .-
‘ a.-- .- “.- .0. _ov '--- —.-v~.'- one..-
‘- . . e . ' _ ‘ s . s
1. .n . . - , .N , - ‘ - _ .. .
Al- I. - Ir - " - a L | | Q. 'I' . - . JC. . l' A ~ "‘ ." ' .As -._ J.-. .v". ..11 ~
- ‘ ' ll .-- — . a ,
D ‘ . .
.~ ‘—' .i—‘I . . ‘1 .' .. - a. - .. _ ‘ .' 21 t! .l:--..\ ~.
. o: a. Our- . -'. .hs‘ h-.v— m*—-pv-~a-m
'_.' .“ .~ ..,
O~ " - .Ln.‘ ...o '.4 .~ ‘
s r ' - s 'r l p .. I. . , r .
. ._ ' .. . ,a ' ' Info. . . -¢ . v,
1“ w >1; a. Lulu ' ", - ‘Jl-4-- \J in ' l-.- at g, . ' .1 . ...e.. .a 5.. 0; 'v.e. .-‘ ~
‘ . 1 .‘ ' ' - . r ‘ a
. . .’ . ' . 1
.L... ‘.L .x _ e- \u- g x. . g - ._ .V -. -‘u- ' . . l. t -. .Ll .. .
'. , » . i' l ’ . b
I ' r- . I IV if." e " l“ .' , ." .
s) 0- -~ Lv‘l ~s ‘ . L-.‘..V. ‘ 1.3.. --...- .. a: . ... _ . - v..-.. c ’...s V— .4
,— - r. , . ‘ ' N . '1 ‘G J p . ' ' f
3-! - ‘ "' -- _- .- . o . . - .v \ o
-- a . .u 1.....- ~.I-I.. - . o v '- lav . L ‘ ae- ‘t I. ‘Qi‘k‘
. f - . I.
. A l O .L‘ I ‘.
' 0 \ us...—
‘ F ' n . O v a» .
A F. a a :1 ' ’ e t) "' i I D 'x' e ‘ "I I - ' --. J .,- . .
- :‘C;..f..‘ .".‘. .A .._.-.e-. .a -.-. I-u . . e t...s_...~ K.“ .V. ..~.. .\ . ‘00- .I 'J-» .ga
.I iv": -' :_ .
. - - .0. . '\ ‘ . a. ' ' .U- 1.- ‘1‘— V o O '6
‘ . ' l_ - r -'
J —‘w' -»~ ‘1 ‘I'e'..t . e \.".-. O.-' . I' e» h‘o 1k. ' " -'-z. \ A n . 313 ' ‘.' ‘. ‘vi-
.. - . _n . . . x... . w . a
. I " ' ~ r . a
. . . " - . a . ' ‘ Q. .Q 1-
o... J. . eJ‘. . . . . : .. » : .
' ‘ . ‘ .m-Jr~——_--— “OI—1.“... .:—- “'3‘... . " ‘ '
. I. u _ ‘ ' . F —
.' ‘ .' " . V _ V ‘ . . i
$-IIJ a e . .‘ >I'\I_‘ - i ‘- .- s l. .\-o-'--.-. . b - --~ .- .‘w l . O a I ..- . ' > \ "' '

7h
“lure” William J.. “Misleading Information Concerning the Deaf.“

W m 2:. m Mo- Vol. 9h. N0. 10-. ammmtel9h-9O

northeast. Helmer 3.. “Clinical Psycholog and Children with Inpaired
Hearing.“ m mm m Volo 50. 191:8.

Nelson. Myrthel 3.. “The Evolutionary Process of Methods of Teaching
Language to the Deaf Iith a Survey of the Methods Now

Employed.“ mm mm Desi Vol. 9h. No. 3.
m. 191.9.

Nelson. Wrthel S... “The Evolutionary Process of Methods of Teaching
Language to the Deaf 'ith a Survey of the Methods Now

EmPJ-oyedo H.“ W m 9.: m We Vol. 949 N00. he
September. 1911.9.

O'Connor. Clarence D.. and Edna Simon. “A Preliminary Sirvey Into
. Problems of Adjustment Among Pupils of the Lexington School

for the Deaf.“ m m 21‘. m DIAL V01» 37» N00 3.
We 195-20 -

O'Connor. Clarence D.. “Discussion of the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing

in Schools and Classes for the Deaf.“ W m 9:. m
m, Vol. 89. 191m.

Peters. Edwin L. “Guidance for Exceptional Children.“ W m .
2:. mm. Vol. 87. No. 1. Jamary. 19u2.-

Pintner. R.. and L. anschwig. “An Adjustment Inventory for Use in

7 Schools for the Deaf.“.m m 91 m m. Vol. 82.
No. 2. March. 1937. - .

Pintner. R.. “All Adjustment Test of Nolnal and Hard of Hearing
Children.“ 13ml 2.: fanatic. W Vol- 56 19w.

3/ Pintner. Ridolf. and Lily Brunschwig. “A Study of Certain Fears and
Wishes Among Deaf and Hearing Children.“ E9. M 9‘,

W W. Vol- 28 1937- .-

7'Pintner. Rudolf. “Emotional Stability of the Hard of Hearing.“

ME: W W» V01. 1&3: N00 10 391*“er
1933-

Pintner. R.. “latest Phases of Psychological Testing with the Deaf.“
Amman Annals. 2f. the Eat. Vol. 82. No. 1:. September. 1937.

Pintner. Rudolf. Irving S. Fusfeld. and Lily Brunschwig. “Personality

Tests of Deaf Adults.“ M 91 W W. Vol. 51.
1937.

75
Pintner. R.. and L. Brunschwig. “Some Personality Adjustments of Deaf
Children in Relation to Two Different Factors.“ LOP; 9;,

W W. Vol. 29. No. 1. September. .193 .

Pintner. R.. “Some Personality Traits of Hard of Hearing Children.“
192ml 2:. fanatic. W. Vol. 60. 19h2~ .

Ibemsr. J'. C. .. “Mental and Educational likesurements of Deaf.“
WW Vol. 29. No. 3. 1921.

Shambaugh. G. 12.. “Diplacusis. A localizing Symptom of Disease of the

Green of Cort1.'Amhun 2:. W V01. 31.
19h0.

Silvelman. S. Richard. “The Implications for Schools for the Deaf of
Recent Research on Hearing Aids. “ m m 2: m
M. V010 9h. NOe a. September. 19u9e

Springer.. N. Norton., “A Comparative Study of the Behavior Traits of
Deaf and Hearing Children of New York City.“ W m
21’. mm V01. 83. N0- 3. lbs. 1938. ~

Springer. N. Norton. “A Comparative Study of the Parchoneurotic
Responses of Deaf and Hearing Children.“ 119. 1m}. 21
WW. V01. 29. 1938. -

Stevenson. Dr. Elwood A.. “The Deaf and the Hard of Hearing in Schools

and Classes for the Deaf.“ m m 21:39, m1.
V01. 89. No. 1‘. September. 19“...

Streng. Alice. and Samel A. Kirk. “The Social Competence of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Children in a Biblic Day School.“ W

mamm V01. 830 N00 30 We 1938e .

amends. Percival M.. and Mirrsy 310m. “A Personality Survey of a
Junior Hid: School.“ m mm Vol. 25. No. 8.
October. l9h7.

5-5

“The Thirty-Third mating of the Convention of American Instructors
of the Deaf.“ Florida School for the Deaf. St. Augustine.
Florida. June 16-20. 19”. W m 91. m We
Yolo 93. N0- 3. W. 191.8.

Vedits. George William. “The Relative Value of Sight and Hearing...“
American Ansell. 2:. mm. Vol. 82. No. 2. larch. 1937.

Vinson. Bhrietta Rector., “The Pupil's Case-m1.“ W m g;
mm. V01. 87. NO. 2. mm. 191‘2.

ward. Herschel 8.. “An Integrated Program of Pupil Evaluation...“
wanna mam 2:29.21. October. 1947.

76

Iilliams. Boyce R... “Essential Characteristics (Qualifications) of a
Rshabilitable Deaf or Hard of Hearing Individual.“ m

Mg; mm. V01. 92. No. 3. EM. 191.7. -

Yelton. D. 0.. “language and the Deaf.“ Anselm m 21 lbs. Mn
_ Vol. 83. No. 2. March, 1938...

...._'.....o 3.2 Ella We 7°19 330 19310
C. W W

Ives. Olive L... “A Critique of Teachers' Ratings as an Indication of
Later Army Neuropsychiatric Rejection.“ Unpublished Doctor's
dissertation. Teachers College. Columbia University. 19%.

 

"TIWIL fij Milli @Iflffllf "@1111ij it)?!“