MSU RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
usamuss remove this checkout from
.—_—n- your record. FINES will

 

 

be charged if'book is
returned after the date
stamped be10w.

 

 

 

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE PRESENTATION FORMATS
OF
THE WEST VIRGINIA WRITTEN TEST
FOR
DRIVER LICENSURE with

HEARING IMPAIRED APPLICANTS

by

James E. Heal

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Deparotment of Teacher Education

1985

Copyright by
James Elmer Heal

1985

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE PRESENTATION FORMATS
THE WEST VIRGINIA WRITTEN TEST
DRIVER LICENSURE WITH
HEARING IMPAIRED APPLICANTS
BY

JAMES E. HEAL

The purpose of this study was to examine the
effectiveness of three presentation modes of the West
Virginia written test for a driver's license with hearing
impaired applicants. The presentation modes were:
(l)regular written test; (2)video tape test; and
(3)abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf. The study
compared the video tape test with the regular written test,
and the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf to
determine if either presentation mode was more effective
than the regular written test. The investigation involved
a Randomized Block or Split-Plot design.

The subjects used for the study were fifty-four high
school age students from the West Virginia School for the
Deaf and six additional high school age resident students
who were attending the West Virginia Rehabilitation Center
in Institute, West Virginia. All subjects volunteered to
participate in this study.

Students were assigned by stratified sampling to

complete one of the three modes of the West Virginia test
for driver licensure. The blocking variable used was the
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level, Form A.

To analyze the data, a one-way analysis of variance
was applied. The results indicated no significant
differences at the 0.05 level. A two-way analysis of
variance was also applied with the subjects divided into
high and low verbal grouping. The results did not show any
significant difference among the three treatment groups at
the 0.05 level.

The major findings of this study were: (1)The mean
scores of hearing impaired subjects taking the West
Virginia written test for driver licensure on the video
tape test and the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the
Deaf were not significantly different from the mean scores
of hearing impaired subjects taking the regular written
test at the 0.05 level; (2)the mean scores of hearing
impaired subjects taking the video tape test were higher
than the mean scores of hearing impaired subjects taking
the regular written test and the Abbreviated English Syntax
Test for the Deaf, but not significantly different; and
(3)the hearing impaired low verbal ability subjects scored
higher on the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf

than the hearing impaired high verbal ability subjects.

Dedication

To my wife, Ruth,
and
my son, Jay,

for their encouragement and support.

iii

Acknowledgements

The writer wishes to take this opportunity to thank
the many people who have helped in the completion of this
study.

Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Donald L.
Smith, his chairman, for the many hours of guidance and
assistance which were provided.

Appreciation is also extended to the other members of
his committee, Dr. Robert E. Gustafson, Dr. Samuel Moore
II, and Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis for their time and support.
Thanks also to Professor Vivian Stevenson from Michigan
State University for her expertise and valuable
assistance.

A special note of thanks is extended to Mr. Dan Haught
and to Mr. Edward Czernicki of the West Virginia School for
the Deaf, to Mr. Keith Hamilton, Mr. Rex Purvis, Mr. Bill
Ramsey and Mr. Tom Mitchell from the West Virginia
Department of Public Safety.

Most especially, thanks is offered to Mrs. Libby
Evans, Mrs. Mary Bradford, Dr. Sam Brill, and Dr. Bob
Gillespie from West Virginia Institute of Technology for
their valuable aid in the completion of this study.

Finally, the writer wishes to express his appreciation
to the hearing impaired students who volunteered to

participate in this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

THE PROB LEM O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0

Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Background of Study . . . . .
Purpose of Study . . . . . . .
Significance of Study . . . .
Questions of be Addressed . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . .
Basic Assumptions .
Definition of Terms
Summary . . . . . .

O O O O
O
O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O I
O O O O O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
0

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Achievement of Deaf Students .
Driving Records of Deaf Drivers . . . .

Special Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY . . . . . .

Source of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Source of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods and Conditions of Data Collection
Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . .
Methods for Analysis of Data . .
Data Collection Instruments .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ad Hoc Findings . .
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . .

Page
vii

viii

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . .
Summary . . . . . .
Findings . . . . .
Conclusions . .
Discussion . . . .
Recommendations . .
Recommendations for Fu t

her Stud

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Figure 1
Randomized Blocks or Split-Plot Design . . . . 31
Table 1
ANOVA for Video Tape Test as Compared to
the Regular Written Test for Driver
Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 2
Treatment Group Mean Scores and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 3
ANOVA for Abbreviated English Syntax Test
for the Deaf as Compared to Regular Written
Test for Driver Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 4
Two-Way Analysis of Variance (i.e. ANOVA) for
Three Presentation Modes of the West Virginia
Written Tests for Driver Licensure . . . . . . . 46
Table 5
Variable Matrix with Means for Three
Presentation Modes of the West Virginia Test
for Driver Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 2
Two-Way ANOVA - Mean Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 6
ANOVA for Three Presentation Modes of the West
Virginia Written Tests for Driver Licensure . . . 50
Table 7

ANOVA for Video Tape Test Compared to the
Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf
for Driver Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix A

West Virginia Operators and Chauffeurs

Examination 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 7 1
Appendix B

West Virginia State Police Operators and

Chauffeurs Examination for the Deaf . . . . . . . 73
Appendix C

Degrees of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

viii

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem

The central problem addressed in this study was the
inability of hearing impaired driver license applicants to
demonstrate competency in the written portion of the West
Virginia Driver's Licensing Test. Hearing impaired
applicants may suffer discrimination by a written knowledge
test when their most common means of communication is with

sign language.

Background of Study

Public Law 94-142, The Education of all Handicapped
Children Act states, "More than half of the handicapped
children in the United States do not receive appropriate
educational service which would enable them to have full
quality of opportunity."

Many hearing impaired persons have severe learning
problems. These problems may be caused by their reading
levels, attention span, or conceptual understanding of
materials.

Han Furth in his book, Thinking Without Language;

Psychological Implications of Deafness, notes, "Those who

1

have hypothezied differences in the thinking of the deaf
usually employed verbal tests and found their theory borne
out as they observed that deaf persons were in general
poorer than hearing persons in such tasks." (1966: 5)

Coppin and Peck concluded, "A number of questions were
left unresolved by the present study, and that additional
research is necessary before the practical and theoretical
significance of deafness as a factor in driving can be
completely assessed." (1964: 21)

Mr. Edward Czernicki, the driver education instructor
for the West Virginia School for the Deaf, who is himself
deaf, stated that, "The biggest problem for his deaf
students was inability to demonstrate competency in the
West Virginia Written driving test for beginners." He
observed that hearing impaired have difficulty passing the
written portions of the driver's license examination. In a
letter dated June 2, 1981, Mr. Czernicki stated, "All deaf
students failed the first time they attempted the test.
Fifty percent passed the second time, and an additional ten
percent passed the third time. The remainder did not pass
the test before school closed for the summer."

Mr. Paul St. Pierre, driver education instructor and
evaluator for the Crotched Mountain Foundation, Greenfield,
New Hampshire in a letter dated October 13, 1980 stated, "I
can state from personal experience that a very high
percentage of deaf persons that I have worked with in the

past fourteen years do have difficulty passing the written

test on the first try, especially those deaf from birth.
Questions having to do with concepts are especially
difficult for them." He further stated, "I have had
persons that had a terrible time passing the written exam,
yet performed very well in the car on the highways.
Unfortunately, persons failing the written test are not
allowed to take the road test."

Several states such as California, Delaware, Florida,
and Wyoming do allow an interpreter to use sign language to
test hearing impaired applicants for driver licensure.
According to the Dictionary 9; Education, sign language is
a means of communication by the use of gestures, or more
specifically, a highly developed system of conventionalized
gestures used in communication with the deaf or among the
deaf themselves as a substitute for speech.

In the state of West Virginia, drivers who are deaf or
hearing impaired are not identified as such on their
driver's license, nor in any statistical records that are
kept by the Department of Motor Vehicles, Charleston, West
Virginia. There has been no information that would allow a
comparison of hearing impaired persons who have failed the
written driver's test with hearing persons who have also
failed. However, there are some observations which
indicate that hearing impaired persons have had a higher
failure rate on the written portion of the driver's test.
Lt. Gary Hill, Chief of the Traffic Research and Safety

Division of the West Virginia Department of Public Safety,

made a study of the failure rate for this test between two
similar towns in West Virginia. This study found that the
failure rate of beginning drivers during the year 1978 was
two times greater in Romney, West Virginia than in
Petersburg, West Virginia. The West Virginia School for the
Deaf is located at Romney, where most beginning hearing
impaired drivers take their licensing examination. Romney
also has a greater percentage of hearing impaired persons
living there than any place in West Virginia.

Finesilver (1962: 90) stated, "Several administrators
cite the need for improved communication between deaf
applicants and licensing examiners. In this regard, many
terms relating to traffic laws or driving practices are
unknown in the vocabulary of many deaf people. Their lack
of ability to communicate or express themselves is clearly
no indication of their driving ability or knowledge of
traffic laws. For that reason, and coupled with views of
experienced licensing examiners, exploration into
promulgating a standard examination for deaf drivers would
not only be of help, but perhaps might very well be
overdue. Several administrators state that a standardized
exam would not only expedite the testing, but also improve
the test itself."

In July, 1980, the Governor of West Virginia announced
the adoption of a new test for the deaf and hearing
impaired in West Virginia. This test was written in an

abbreviated syntax form such as an interpreter would write

if using sign language, a means of communication using hand
and fingers. This test was modified from the West Virginia
State Police Operators and Chauffeurs Examination, Test D,
by members of the Traffic Research and Safety Division of
the Department of Public Safety, and staff members of West
Virginia Rehabilitation Department Services for the Deaf.
It was field-tested at Romney, West Virginia. It is
believed that West Virginia was the first state to adopt a
written test specifically for the hearing impaired.

Furth states, "There is one trait most deaf persons do
share and that is objective and measureable lack of
language skills. If educators agree that education should
primarily teach and develop thinking according to a child's
.optimal potential, they would readily seek non-verbal
teaching methods, particularly in cases where linguistics
skill is retarded or absent." (1966: 71)

On the above information, the writer proposed that the
regular written Test D of the West Virginia State Police
Operators and Chauffeurs Examination be presented on video
tape with an interpreter doing the exact test in sign

language.

Purpose of the Study

The writer's purpose in this study was to examine the
effectiveness of three presenation modes of the West

Virginia written test for a driver's license with hearing

impaired applicants. The three presentation modes were:

(1) Rggular Written Test --- Test D, one of four
written tests given by the Department of Public Safety in
West Virginia to test the knowledge of driver license
applicants. This test was developed by the University of
Arizona data analysis team from the West Virginia Driver's
Handbook. Using a method by Ebel (1967), the reliability
index is in the range of .55 to .70.

(2) Video or Visual Tape Test --- The Regular Written
Test D, presented by an interpreter on video tape using
sign language.

(3) Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf ---
This test was adopted in July, 1980 by the Department of
Public Safety in West Virginia. This test is the same as
the Regular Written Test D, except it is written in an
abbreviated syntax form such as the interpreter would write
the questions if he/she was using sign language.

The writer attempted to indicate which of the three
different modes was most effective in administering the

written driver's test to hearing impaired applicants.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study was in its potential to
help hearing impaired persons understand and be more
successful in passing the written portion of the West

Virginia Driver's Licensing Test. It seems appropriate that

one be able to take this test in one's own language.

The ability to drive a car and finding proper
employment are closely related for many people--and this is
particulary so for hearing impaired people.

Finesilver stated, "We recognize that one of our most
precious possessions is our complete freedom of mobility.
To a person who is deaf this freedom of movement--for the
most part--is centered around driving privileges and these
privileges to the deaf take on additional importance. They
run the broad horizon of driver licensing, mental and
physical condition, driver records and accident
involvement." (1962:11)

For hearing impaired persons driving is a necessity
and often the means of earning a livelihood. It is
undeniably clear that the ability to work is an essential
ingredient for self-respect.

In a report titled Impact Study on Driving by Special

Populations, Vol. 1, it was noted that as greater numbers

 

of the population grow older, as automotive technology
advances, and as special interest groups assert the rights
of their constituents, there will be increased pressure on
licensing administrators and driver education to modify
existing licensing procedures and education programs to
insure personal mobility, (Brainin, et al.: 1977: 13).

If this study proves significant, the Department of
Public Safety could adopt the most effective method for

testing all hearing impaired drivers in the written portion

of the driver's test. Other states may wish to adopt the

most effective format for testing of their hearing impaired

driver applicants.

Questions to be Addressed

1. Will the use of specially prepared visual tapes
using sign language and visualization for hearing impaired
persons result in higher scores on the written part of the
driver's test than the use of the regular written test?

2. Will the use of the Abbreviated Syntax Test for the
Deaf result in higher scores on the written part of the
driver's test than the use of the regular written exam?

3. Will persons who score high or low on the verbal

tests score equally as high or low on the written driving

tests?

Hypotheses

Research Hypotheses

1. There will be a significant difference between the
mean scores of the hearing impaired persons taking the
driver's test on the visual tapes in sign language and the

scores of hearing impaired persons taking the regular

written test.

11,5}(1 >4,

2. There will be a significant difference between the mean
scores of the hearing impaired person taking the driver's
test on the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf
and the scores of hearing impaired persons taking the
regular written test.

HI:H3 >14:

3. There will be a significant difference between the
mean scores of the hearing impaired persons with high or
low verbal ability taking the West Virginia test for driver
licensure with the three different treatment groups.

H.:H4*M1#H1 #423

Null Hypotheses

1. There will be no difference between the mean scores
of the hearing impaired persons taking the driver's test on
visual tapes in sign language and the scores of hearing
impaired persons taking the regular written test.

HO: H2 =M.

2. There will be no difference between the mean scores
of the hearing impaired persons taking the driver's test on
the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf and the
scores of hearing impaired persons taking the regular

written test.

HO:H_3 27H.

10

3. There will be no difference between the mean scores of
the hearing impaired persons with high or low verbal
ability taking the West Virginia written test for driver
licensure with the three different treatment groups.
HO: M43M13M2 3H3
‘LL = Mean scores for the regular written test.

H2

H3 = Mean scores for the syntax test.

Mean scores for the video tape test.

l4¥= Mean scores for high and low verbal ability
students.

Hypotheses will use an alpha of 0.05.
Basic Assumptions

In this study the following assumptions were made:

1. The validity and reliability of the West Virginia
State Police Operators and Chauffeurs Written Examination
for beginning drivers was sufficient for the purpose of
this study.

2. The validity and reliability of the Stanford
Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level, Form A was sufficient
for the purpose of this study.

3. All subjects in the sample were hearing impaired of
high school age, and considered to be suitable for this
study.

4. The number of subjects in the sample was sufficient

for the purpose of this study.

11

Definitions of Terms

To clarify terms in this study, the following
definitions are used.

(1) Congenital --- Actually or potentially present in
the individual at birth.

(2) Deafness, adventitious --- A condition occurring
after birth, in a person born with natural hearing as a
result of accident or disease.

(3) Deafness, congenital --- A general term for
deafness dating from birth or earlier.

(4) Decibel --- A unit used to measure the relative
loudness of sounds. One decibel is considered to be the
faintest sound that can be heard by a normally hearing
person.

(5) Hard of Hearipg --- Having defective hearing that
is, however functional, for the ordinary purposes of life.

(6) Hearing Impairment --- The most general term for
mal-function of the auditory mechanism; does not
distinguish either the anatomical area primarily involved
or the functional nature of the impairment.

(7) Interpreter --- One who translates orally for a
person speaking in a different language.

(8) Knowledge --- The accumulated facts, truths,
principles, and information to which the human mind has

access .

12

(9) Knowledge Test --- Any test designed to measure

 

what an individual or group knows about a particular
subject.

(10) Language --- A code for conveying the thoughts
and feelings of one individual to another which has been
accepted and is mutually understood by both.

(11) Language, Sign --- A means of communication by
the use of gestures. More specifically, a highly developed
system of communication conventionalized gestures used in
communication with the deaf or among the deaf themselves as
a substitute for speech.

(12) Mpg; --- The form or manner, as in mode of
communication or "teaching mode".

(13) Oral Aural --- Pertaining to speaking and hearing
as applied to language teaching.

(14) Syntax --- The area of grammatical study dealing
with sentence structure and word relations as established
by usage.

(15) Test, information --- A test designed to measure
the subject's knowledge of facts.

(16) Test, verbal --- Any test depending on written
and spoken language.

(17) Vocabulary, basic --- The words and idioms
considered essential for minimal use of a language.

(18) Vocabulary, comprehension --- Words having
meaning when heard or seen even though not produced by the

individual himself to communicate with others.

13

(19) Vocabulary, reading --- The word forms that one
recognizes when he sees them in print or writing.

The above definitions were taken from the Dictionary
of Education, New York, Good, Carter, V. ed. McGraw-Hill,
1973.

The following definitions were taken from the
Educator's Resource Guide to Special Education. Davis,
William E., Boston, Mass., Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1980.

(20) American Sign Language --- A communication system
used by the deaf. General ideas or thoughts are conveyed
through the use of various gestures. The system has its

own grammatical rules and is mainly concept based.

(21) Auditory --- Pertaining to the sense of hearing.
(22) Verbal Intelligence --- A type of intelligence

 

that involves skills in the use of spoken or written

language.

SUMMARY

The hearing impaired do have special problems in
communications. The hearing impaired seem to have
difficulty with comprehending the wording on most tests.
The language and vocabulary deficiency of the hearing
impaired is clearly shown in several studies that have been
conducted. It was shown that hearing impaired children do
as well as hearing children in taking non-verbal tests.

Hearing impaired applicants should be able to take the

14

written portion of the West Virginia Driver's Test in the
language they find most comprehensible, and the true
language of the deaf and hearing impaired is sign

language. According to the Dictionary 9; Education, sign

 

language is a means of communication by the use of
gestures. This study attempted to prove the most effective
mode for the West Virginia written driver licensing
examination for the hearing impaired. There may be a need
for licensing administrators to modify existing licensing
procedures to insure personal mobility for the hearing
impaired.

Literature relating to language and vocabulary
deficiency among the hearing impaired will be reviewed in
Chapter II. The review of literature will also include
studies related to the driving records of hearing impaired
persons, and different non-verbal tests to aid the hearing

impaired in comprehending communication.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 

The review of literature in this chapter includes the
following topics: (1) educational achievement of deaf
students, (2) driving records of deaf drivers, and (3)

special testing.

Educational Achievement of Deaf Students

Intelligence scores are distributed essentially the
same in the deaf population as among the non-deaf. This is
the conclusion of Vernon (1968: 1-12) after examining over
fifty studies.

The educational achievement of the young deaf is
somewhat different than that of hearing students. In a
survey by McClure (1966) covering 93 per cent of the deaf
students in the United States who were sixteen or older, it
was found that 30 per cent were functionally illiterate, 60
per cent were achieving at 5.3 grade level or below and
only five per cent were achieving at the tenth grade level
or above.

The Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College,
Washington, D.C., made a study of 6,871 hearing impaired

15

16

persons in 1974. The results showed that the median reading
scores for students aged twenty or above corresponded to a
grade equivalent of slightly over 4.5. The results also
showed that only ten per cent of hearing impaired eighteen
year old students read at or above the eighth grade level.
(An average hearing child reaches a grade equivalent of 8.2
before age fourteen.) The Gallaudet study found that the
difference between the mean achievement of hearing
students, when compared with the mean achievement of the
non-hearing students, increased approximately one and
one-half grades to more than five grades by age fourteen.
Trybus & Karchmer (1977: 64-67) concluded the study by
urging a reduction of the substantial educational
disadvantage faced by hearing impaired students.

Wrightston, Aronow, and Moskowitz (1963: 311-316), in
their study of 73 school programs for the deaf (54% of the
deaf school children in the United States), found the
average reading achievement of sixteen year olds to be
below 4.9 grade level.

Markowin (1960: 136-137) stated, "In language there
are special difficulties for the deaf child--understanding
the use of metaphors, distinguishing between words of
several meanings, finding special meanings for abstract
concepts of causal or conditional relationships, and
understanding the principles of grammatical and syntatic
structure of language."

Furth (1966: 71) observed that one trait most deaf

17

persons share is "an objective and measurable lack of
language skills."

Schein (1968: 91) reported that the average deaf
student is retarded 2 to 5 years on various measures of
language achievements.

Furth (1973:94) reported a study in which 12,000 deaf
persons were given the Stanford Achievement Test. Twenty
per cent of 540 pupils aged 15-17 reached a reading level
of fifth grade or higher.

Raymond J. Trybus and Michael A. Karchmer (1977: 67)
reported that "since many hearing impaired children
appeared to be unprepared for the question types found on
tests, and had difficulty with the mechanics of marketing
responses in specified locations on the test booklet or
answer sheet, practice test materials must be used before
actual testing."

Furth (1966: 205) stated that, "By the time the child
enters school the battle for mastery of language is already
lost. The child's intelligence has been developing without
benefit of language. He is still below the level that
would enable him to readily form and comprehend connected
language." On the brighter side, Furth (1973: 91)
concluded, "Because of these difficulties, it might appear
that the deaf children would perform poorly on non-verbal
tests of intelligence, but their overall scores have never
been demonstrated to be greatly lower than national norms,

although occasionally some significant differences in favor

18

of hearing norms are reported."

Furth (1973: 91) also acknowledged that on an
individual basis, non-verbal intelligence tests are
frequently and successfully given to deaf children, and
that standard norms can be used. Furth (1973: 92)
concluded that a non-hearing child compares favorably with
a hearing child on visual and manipulatory skills.

Furth (1973: 91) also stated that, "The same children
who perform normally on non-verbal intelligence tests fail

rather miserably in language learning."

Driving Records of Deaf Drivers

The Department of Motor Vehicles of Washington, D.C.
examined the actual records of traffic infractions and
accidents for every deaf person in the area who had
received a ticket or had been involved in an accident
during the years 1960, 1961, and 1962. The results as

reported by Schein, (1968: 82-83) were:

(1) deaf drivers had less than one-third
as many accidents on the average as
did hearing drivers,

(2) deaf drivers were ticketed for all moving
violations about half as frequently as
hearing drivers and

(3) the average deaf driver drives more miles than
the average hearing driver because the hearing
impaired driver cannot use the telephone.

19

A survey conducted by Coppin and Peck (1963:30) for
the California Department of Motor Vehicles compared the
driving records of a large number of members of the
California Association of the Deaf with a sample of hearing
drivers. The drivers were matched for driving records,
annual mileage, occupation, and age. The sample of deaf
drivers had 1.78 times as many accidents and 1.26 times as
many convictions as did the non-deaf. However, this group
of deaf drivers was not properly matched to the hearing
sample for two reasons: (1) the records of the deaf drivers
covered the years 1950—62, while the records for the
hearing drivers were for the years 1955-58. (2) Eighty per
cent of the deaf drivers lived in San Franciso or Los
Angeles areas compared to 66.42 per cent of the hearing
sample. The report concluded that the deaf driver did not
"represent any serious problems in terms of traffic safety
and driving performance in this state."

In a follow-up study, the California researchers
Coppin and Peck (1964: 23) compared matched samples of deaf
and non-deaf on violation points and reported accidents.
The groups were matched on the variable of age, sex, annual
mileage, occupation and area of residence.

Deaf females did not differ significantly from matched
non-deaf females on violation points or reported
accidents. The deaf males did not differ significantly
from non-deaf males when compared on total conviction

points. Deaf males had a significantly greater number of

20

accidents than the non-deaf males.

Coppin and Peck noted that only one out of eight deaf
drivers had any formal training in driving. They concluded
their report by urging the need for further research
"before the practical and theoretical significance of
deafness as a factor in driving can be completely
assessed."

Finesilver (1961: 12) compared the records of one
hundred Colorado deaf drivers with two groups of one
hundred hearing drivers. The deaf group had fewer
accidents than either group of hearing drivers.

Finesilver (1968: 3) in a survey of the fifty states
found that 41 of 49 states ranked deaf drivers at least as
good as hearing drivers. Another study of 160 deaf drivers
in Colorado showed that 75 per cent of the deaf drivers had
perfect driving records and not one deaf driver had had a
fatal accident or citation in the five year period
studied.

Finesilver (1968: 3) cited a study of 18,000 persons
with poor driving records in the state of Oregon which
revealed that fewer than ten of them were deaf motorists.
In the same article, Finesilver noted Pennsylvania driving
records over a ten year period involving three million
drivers showed that deaf drivers did not cause an injury
producing accident while Wisconsin driving records of two
thousand deaf drivers indicated none were involved in a

fatal accident.

21

Finesilver (1961: 12) also reported that in Kentucky,
a deaf driver had never been called for a hearing
preliminary to revocation of a driver's license, and out of
127,162 Virginian drivers involved in accidents in 1959,
only 111 were reported to have defective hearing.

Judge Finesilver hypothesized that some of the reasons
for the good records of the deaf drivers were that the deaf
were free from the hypnotic effect of noise which often
causes inattention and mental lapses, that their handicaps
caused them to remain alert and attentive when driving,
that there was an esprit-de-corp among the deaf to keep
good driving records so that they would not lose either
licenses or insurance. Finesilver (1968: 3) stated that,
"It has been the universal conclusion of all my studies
that the deaf driver is at least as good as the hearing
driver, and there is compelling evidence that he is far
better." Finesilver (1968: 3) stated that the "proper
seeing habits and well-developed perceptions of potential

driving hazards are highly prevalent in deaf drivers."

Special Testing

When educators work with the deaf, visual training
aids are used extensively. It has been estimated that more
than 90 per cent of the information used in driving is
visual. Aaron and Strasser (1973: 15)

Joseph Pernick, a Detroit Attorney, was instrumental

22

in establishing an appeal procedure for deaf applicants for
driver's licenses in Michigan. Pernick observed that in
many instances deaf people did not understand the
examination questions, and as a result failed the test.

The appeal procedure, which began in 1959 gave the deaf
applicant an opportunity to take a special test. This
appeal was available to the deaf applicant only after
having failed the driver's test twice. (Finesilver, 1962:
134)

In California, Dr. Jones conducted a study to consider
ways to make the driving test fair to all applicants,
regardless of their language ability and driving ability or
cultural background. Dr. Jones (1980: 4) stated there is
not necessarily a relationship between language ability and
driving ability; "Just because a person isn't very verbal
doesn't mean he can't drive very well." Believing that the
traditional testing system for driver's licensing puts a
premium on verbal, clerical, and test taking skills, the
newly constructed test was aural. The applicant listened
to the questions on cassette tapes and responded by marking
answers in a picture book.

Dr. Joseph Shrader (1980: 4) evaluated 326 high school
students from twelve Ohio high schools who had just
completed a driver education course. His study concluded
that multimedia had no significant effect on students'
knowledge of driving.

Schneidman (1975: 8) reported in the Chicago Tribune

23

that policemen Sam Anthony and Pat McGoldrich had
established a Driver Improvement School in Chicago. The
program was designed to prepare novice drivers for the
written examination. A test and permit preparation
questions were part of the program of instruction. They
had trained more than two hundred deaf drivers, none of
which have had a fatal accident.

A report by Cunningham (1970: 372-375) showed that the
use of special captioned simulator films can be an
effective tool.

Dr. Joseph W. Sendelbaugh (1980: 542-544) compared
three methods that could be used to modify driver simulator
films for hearing impaired students. Three groups were
matched for hearing loss, educational level, type of
communication, and sex. None of the hearing impaired
students in this study could hear any of the instructions
given on the driver simulator film. The three treatments
were (a) captioned (white letters on blank) via slides; (b)
picture (drawings of driver action); and (c) flashlight
patterns. A modification using graphics indicating various
driving commands with the use of some captioning proved to
be the most effective of the methods studied. In this same
study Sendelbaugh reported "that the subjects received
greater understanding from the film that used the
picture-captioned slides."

Dan McGill taught driver education to 150

hearing-impaired 15 year olds at the Texas school for the

24

deaf at Austin, Texas. He used captions on all visual
materials to reinforce his lectures. (Driver Education
Digest, Vol. IX, 4, 1977-78) In this same study, McGill
stated that deaf students "often are safer drivers than the
hearing because of their handicap. The deaf depend on
looking."

It is believed that West Virginia is the first state
to adopt a special test for the deaf. This test, adopted
in July 1980, used an abbreviated syntax form of
presentation. The questions were stated in phrases as an
interpreter would write the test using sign language. All
other state agencies were contacted, but none replied that

it had such a test.

25

Summary

This review of literature indicated that the deaf
students were retarded in reading skills, two to five years
behind hearing students. They do not do well on verbal
achievement tests, but do score as well as hearing students
on non-verbal achievement teStS.

Statistics show that the deaf drivers have as good, if
not better, driving records based upon accidents and
violations.

Several states provide interpreters to help the deaf
understand the written portion of the driver's tests. Two
states, California and West Virginia, have developed new
modes of presenting the test questions to applicants who
have language disabilities.

Chapter III will explain the design and procedure used
in this study. The chapter will include: (1) source of
data; (2)source of subjects; (3) methods and conditions of
data collection; (4) design of the study; (5) method for

analysis of data and (6) data collection instruments.

 

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY

The major objective of this study was to examine the
effectiveness of three presentation modes of the West
Virginia knowledge test for a driver's license with hearing
impaired applicants.

The preceding chapter dealt with a review of
literature related to these objectives, i.e., academic
achievement of hearing impaired students, driving records
of deaf and hearing impaired people, and special tests for
the deaf and hearing impaired persons.

In this chapter, the following items will be
presented: (1) source of data, (2) source of subjects; (3)
methods and conditions of data collection; (4) design of
the study; (5) method for analysis of data; and (6) data

collection instruments.

SOURCE OF DATA

 

The subjects for this study were taken from two
sources: (1) high school students from West Virginia School
for the Deaf, Romney, West Virginia, and (2) hearing
impaired high school age students who were attending the
West Virginia Rehabilitation Center, Institute, West

Virginia.

26

27

SOURCE OF SUBJECTS

 

The largest selection of subjects were hearing
impaired students enrolled in vocational education classes
at the West Virginia School for the Deaf, Romney, West
Virginia. These students were all hearing impaired,
enrolled in the high school and were fifteen to twenty-two
years of age. All students used in this study were
volunteers.

There was a total of 108 students available for this
study at the West Virginia School for the Deaf, with 54
students volunteering to participate. The School for the
Deaf in Romney, West Virginia is the only school in the
state for the deaf and hearing impaired. The students who
attend this school come from all geographical areas of the
state.

Additional subjects were hearing impaired high school
age resident students in the West Virginia Rehabilitation
Center, Institute, West Virginia.

Six hearing impaired students from a total of 8 agreed
to take part in this study. There were other hearing
impaired persons at the center, but they had other defects,

and were not considered school-age students.

METHODS AND CONDITIONS OF DATA COLLECTION

The procedures used for collection of the data

included: (1) completion of a pre-test or blocking

 

28

variable, the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown
Level, Form A and (2) completion of one of the three
different modes of the West Virginia written test for
driver license applicants.

The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level,
Form A was used to place subjects in one of the three
different modes of the written test for driver license
applicants. The hearing impaired subjects were tested on
reading comprehension and given fifteen minutes to complete
the test. Raw scores were used and the subjects were
randomly assigned by stratified sampling to take one of the
three different tests. This was done to insure that all
three cells had subjects of approximately equal reading
ability.

School records at the West Virginia School for the
Deaf were used to determine that all students were hearing
impaired.

During a telephone conversation with Mr. Haught,
Vocational Education Principal for the West Virginia School
for the Deaf, a time and place to meet with students of the
school was arranged. At this meeting, the students were
(1) told the purpose of the study, and (2) asked if they
would be willing to complete a reading test and one of the
three different modes of the West Virginia written test for
the driver license applicants. Fifty-four subjects from a
total of 108 agreed to participate in this study.

The student's own school was chosen as the test site

 

29

because the students were familiar with the building and
neighborhood. This also eliminated transporation problems
to and from a test site. School officials willingly
granted permission to use the school facilities in the
interest of driver education. Mr. Haught provided time for
the students to participate in this study. The Stanford
Diagnostic Test was administered and monitored by Mr.
Haught the first day. After the tests were scored,
subjects were randomly assigned by stratified sampling or
randomized blocks to one of the three different
presentation modes of the West Virginia written tests for
driver license applicants. (Refer to Figure 1)

The following day, the subjects completed one of the
three different modes of the West Virginia written test for
driver license applicants. Mr. Haught monitored these test
for this study. He was able to communicate with these
students by the use of sign language, essential for giving
directions for these tests.

Additional subjects were needed to provide twenty
subjects in each of the three cells. Arrangements were
made with Mr. Purvis, Supervisor of the Personal Adjustment
Unit, West Virginia Rehabilitation Center, Institute, West
Virginia to meet with some of his summer students in
residence at the center. Six high school age subjects who
were hearing impaired volunteered to take part in this
study. Permission to use the center's facilities and time

for the subjects to take the tests were arranged by Mr.

 

3O

Purvis. Miss Elkins, a teacher in the deaf unit
administered and monitored these tests. The same procedure
as used at the West Virginia School for the Deaf was
followed for randomly assigning these subjects to the three

treatment groups .

 

31

Figure 1

Randomized Blocks or Split-Plot Desigg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Regular Written B. Video Tape C. English Suntax
Examination Examination For Deaf Exam
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I N = 20 I I N = 20 I I N = 20 I
I i I I i I
S
I 1 I I S2 I I 53 I
I S I I S : I S I
I 6 I I 5 I I 4 I
I s I I s I I I
I 7 I I 8 I I 9 I
I ’ I I ' I I o I
I I I I I I
I ° | | 0 I I o I
I I I I I l
' o I | D I I I
I l I I I I
I ° I I ' I I ° I
I I I I I I
I ° I I g I I g. I
I 60 I I 59 - I I 58 I
I I I I I I
S , S , S ,S , ----- S = Subjects in Population
1 2 3 4 60
Treatment
Group A T
1
Group B T
2
Group C T
3
T = Regular Written Test
1
T = Video Tape Test
2
T = Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf

32

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The research design used for this study is called
Randomized Blocks or Split-Plot design. The 60 subjects
were assigned to one of three treatment groups.

The independent variables measured were the three
different presentation modes of the West Virginia written
test for driver license applicants: (1) regular written
examination, (2) video tape examination, and (3) English
Syntax for the Deaf examination.

The dependent variable was the number of correct
answers on the three different presentation mode of the
West Virginia written test for drivers license applicants.

A diagram of this design is found in table 1.

METHOD FOR ANALYSIS OF DATA

A one way analysis of variance was used to analyze the
data. This test is one of the more powerful procedures in
experimental studies (Bowker and Lieberman, 1959-286). This
is a statistical method of testing for significant
differences between mean scores of two or more groups of
subjects which have been exposed to different experimental
treatments. The performance of these groups can be
considered to represent results of the treatment by an
independent variable whose possible relationship to a

dependent variable is being studied (Popham, 1967: 164).

33

A two way analysis of variance was also applied with
subjects divided into high and low verbal ability groups.
The purpose of the two way analysis of variance was an
attempt to see if reading scores were a factor in this
study.

The statistical model capitalizes on the integral
relationship between the mean and the variance so that by
analyzing variances of several groups, a conclusion can be
drawn regarding the similarity of the means of the group.

All F values are reported in the next chapter.

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

The instruments used in this study included the
following: (1) Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown
Level A, (2) Test D, one of the four traditional written
tests given by the Department of Public Safety in West
Virginia to test driver license applicants, (3) the regular
written Test D, presented on video tape by an interpreter
using sign language, and (4) Abbreviated English Syntax

Test for the Deaf.

The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test

This test was used as a blocking variable to measure
reading ability, and used only to place the subjects in one
of the three different treatment groups. The subjects were

given fifteen minutes to complete this test and raw scores

 

34

were used.

The Regular Written Test

Test D is one of four written tests given by the
Department of Public Safety in West Virginia to test the
knowledge of driver license applicants. This test, from
the West Virginia Driver's Handbook, was developed by the
University of Arizona data analysis team. Using a method
by Ebel (1967:125-128), the reliability index is in the
range of .55 to .70. There were twenty-five multiple-choice
questions in each of the three different presentation
modes. Answer sheets were provided for the subjects to
record their answers. An answer sheet booklet was
available to score tests. The subjects were given a choice

of four answers. The complete test is in Appendix A.

Video or Visual Tape Test

This test is the regular written Test D, presented by
an interpretor (Mr. Keith Hamilton, of the West Virginia
Rehabilitation Center, Institute, West Virginia) on video
tape using sign language, which is a means of communication
by the use of hand gestures. It was produced by the
Communications Department of the West Virginia
Rehabilitation Center for the purpose of this study in the

fall Of 1980.

 

35

Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf

Through the cooperative efforts of the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation, the Department of Public Safety,
and the Department of Motor Vehicles, this test was adopted
in July 1980 by the Department of Public Safety in West
Virginia. This was the same as the regular written test D,
except it was written in abbreviated syntax form. In this

modified test, sentence construction and phrasing of

 

questions were changed to a conceptual language more
readily understood by individuals with minimal language
skills (Campbell, l981:2). A sampling of 100 consumers was
used in the process of determining effective, functional
questions applicable for use in this test. Vocational
Rehabilitation deafness specialists then made the final
revisions on the twenty-five questions that made up this
modified test (Campbell, l981:2). The complete test in

Appendix B.

36

SUMMARY

In summary, the following procedures for collection
and analysis of the data were conducted.

1. During the spring of 1981, 54 hearing impaired
students participated in the study from the West Virginia
School for the Deaf, Romney, West Virginia.

2. During the summer of 1981, an additional 6 hearing
impaired students from the West Virginia Rehabilitation
Center, Institute, West Virginia participated in this
study.

3. Permission to use the test scores was obtained from
the West Virginia School for the Deaf, and the West
Virginia Rehabilitation Center, Institute, West Virginia
during the spring and summer of 1981.

4. Permission to use the regular written test and the
Abbreviated Syntax Test for the Deaf was obtained from Lt.
Gary Hill of the West Virginia Department of Public Safety.

5. The selection and placement of subjects was
conducted using a blocking variable, the Stanford
Diagnostic Reading test. Subjects were assigned by
stratified sampling to take one of the different tests.

6. The video tape test was filmed by the West Virginia
vocational Rehabilitation Center Communications Department,
with Mr. Keith Hamilton, a hearing specialist as the
interpreter.

7. The research design used for this study was called

 

37

Randonized Blocks or Split Plot design.

8. To analyze the data, a one way analysis of variance
and a two way analysis of variance was applied.

The following Chapter IV will include: (1) Findings;

(2) Ad Hoc Findings; and (3) Summary of Findings.

 

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative
effectiveness of three presentation modes of the West
Virginia written test for a driver's license with hearing
impaired applicants.

The study compared the video or visual tape test with
the regular written test, and the Abbreviated English
Syntax Test with the regular written test to determine if
either was more effective or less effective than the
regular written test. The three presentation modes were
(1) Regular written test, (2) Video or visual tape test,
and (3) Abbreviated English Syntax test for the Deaf (see
Appendix A and B).

In the preceding chapter the design and procedures of
the study were presented. A total of 60 hearing impaired
high school age subjects volunteered to participate in this
study. The subjects were students at the West Virginia
School for the Deaf, Romney, West Virginia and the West
Virginia Rehabilitation Center, Institute, West Virginia.
These students completed a pre-test or blocking variable
test, the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level,
Form A. After the tests were scored, subjects were assigned
by stratified sampling or randomized blocks to one of the
three different modes of the West Virginia written tests
for driver license applicants (see Appendix A and B). The

38

 

39

design for this study was called Randomized Blocks or
Split-Plot Design and may be seen in Figure 1, Chapter
Three. In this chapter, the analysis of data is presented.

The following items are included in this section:

(1) Findings
(A) Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3

(2) Ad Hoc Findings

(3) Summary of Findings

 

40

Findings

Hypothesis #1

There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores of hearing impaired persons taking the West
Virginia written test for driver licensure on the video or
visual tape test and the mean scores of hearing impaired
persons taking the regular written test. (Ho=}(z1:/{.)

A one way analysis of variance procedure compared the
mean scores of the video tape test to the regular written
test for driver licensure. There was a difference in the
mean scores between the video tape test (12.15) and the
regular written test (10.35). (See Table 2) The results
were not statistically significant at the .05 level.
(F=1.12, dF 1.38, Pr--> F=0.2970). With 1 and 38 degrees of
freedom, an F of 4.10 was required for the result to be
significant at the .05 level. Since the F was 1.12, this
null hypothesis could not be rejected. The results are

shown in the ANOVA Table 1.

 

41

Table 1

ANOVA for Video Tape Test as compared to the Regular
Written Test for Driver Licensure

Source dF SS MS F PR_-—>_F

 

Model (Among) 1 32.400 32.40 1.12 0.2970
Error (Within) 38 1101.100 28.976

Corrected Total 39 1133.500

Treatment 1 32.400

 

 

 

Significance = 4.10 at .05 Level

The Coefficient of Variation was 47.8486, and the R.

Square was 0.028584. The grade mean was 11.25.

42

Table 2

Treatment Group Mean Scores and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for the Deaf

I I
I I

Treatment I Mean I S.D.
I_N=20 for all Cells_I
I I
I I

Video Tape Test I 12.15 I 4.6370
I I

Regular Written Test: 10.35 I 6.0373
I a
I I

English Syntax Test I 10.95 I 3.1367
I I
I I
I I

 

 

-_—---—-—---‘-—-——__--_——

 

43

Hypothesis #2

 

There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores of hearing impaired persons taking the West
Virginia written tests for driver licensure on the
Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf and the mean
scores of hearing impaired persons taking the regular
written test. (Ho: H3 2: A, )

A one-way anaylsis of variance procedure compared the
mean scores of the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the
Deaf to the regular written test for driver licensure. The
difference between the mean scores of the Abbreviated
English Syntax Test (10.95) and the mean scores for the
regular written test (10.35) was very small. The results
of the one-way analysis of variance procedure (F=0.16, dF
1.38, Pr--> F=0.6955) were not statistically significant at
the .05 level. With 1 and 38 degrees of freedom an F of
4.10 was required for the result to be significant. Since
the F was 0.16, this null hypothesis could not be
rejected. The analysis of variance proved that the
Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf was not more
effective for the hearing impaired than the regular written

test. The results are shown in the ANOVA Table 3.

 

44

Table 3

ANOVA for Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf as
compared to Regular Written Test for Driver Licensure

 

 

 

 

 

Source dF SS MS F PR-->__F
Model (Among) 1 3.60 3.60 0.16 0.6955
Error (Withing) 38 879.50 23.144
Corrected Total 39 883.10
Treatment 1 3.60

 

 

 

Significance = 4.10 at .05 Level

The Coefficient of Variation was 45.1727, and the R

square was 0.004077. The grade mean was 10.05.

45

Hypothesis #3

 

There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores of the hearing impaired persons with high or
low verbal ability taking the West Virginia written test
for driver licensure with the three different treatment
groups. (14.1)“ :II, 2M3. :: A3)

On the basis of the reading scores of the Stanford
Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level, Form A, the subjects
were divided into high and low verbal ability groupings.
The top ten students of each test (Video, Regular, and
English Syntax) were placed in the high verbal ability
groups, while the lower ten were placed in the low verbal
groups.

The high verbal students had mean scores of 13.3 for
the video tape test, compared to 11.8 for the regular
written test, and 10.6 for the English Syntax Test for the
Deaf.

The low verbal students had mean scores of 11.3 for
the English Syntax Test for the Deaf, compared to 11.0 for
the video tape test, and 8.9 for the regular written
tests. The mean scores for these groups are shown in Table
5 and Figure 2.

A two-way analysis of variance with high and low
verbal ability grouping did not show any significant
differences among the three different treatments. The
columns (F=0.74) with 2 and 54 degrees of freedom, an F of

3.17 was required for the result to be significant at the

46

0.05 level. The experimental determined F statistic using
the SAS Program was 0.74. The rows (F=1.4997, dF 1 and 54)
with 1 and 54 degrees of freedom an F of 4.02, was required
for the result to be significant at the 0.05 level. The
experimental F statistic using the SAS Program was 1.497.
The interaction (F=0.83, dF 2 and 54) with 2 and 54 degrees
of freedom, in F of 3.17 was required for the result to be
significant at the 0.05 level.

The experimentally determined F statistic using the
SAS Program was 0.83 on the basis of the results of the
two-way analysis of variance, the original null hypothesis
could not be rejected. The results are shown in the ANOVA

Table 4.

Table 4

Two-way Analysis of Variance (i.e. ANOVA) for three Presentation
Modes of the West Virginia Written Tests for Driver Licensure

 

 

 

 

 

 

dF SS MS F

Columns 2 33.6 16.8 0.74
Rows 1 33.7 33.7 1.497
Interaction 2 37.2 18.6 .83
Within Cells 54 1217.1 22.54
Total 59 1321.65

Significance = 3.17 at .05 Level

Significance = 4.02 at .05 Level

Significance 3.17 at .05 Level

47

Table 5

Variable Matrix with Means for three Presentation Modes

of the West Virginia Test for Driver Licensure

English Syntax
Test for the

 

11.8

11.3

8.9

 

 

F.
a
e
D
S
1.
1
De
uC t
O S
r11 r.e
nuI. aml
a .1
t un
n.1 Ave
60 et
mar pnt
t .i
anu r
e11 W
r._
mIN
t
s
06
eml
d
file
V.P
a
T

 

Reading

 

13.3

High

66.9

21.9

20.7

 

 

 

 

LOW

'I'II' II'III'IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII II I'IIII .II. IIlI-IIIIIIII C

48

Figure 2

Two-Way ANOVA - Mean Scores

SYNTAX

REGULAR

V.lnuEAu

MEAN SCORES

-l|"|'||' "a'll'll'-' 1" ‘|'| -‘l' l- ‘|"

 

 

E... |||"‘|l'|'|l,l 'E‘II'III "ll I- 'I '1'-

49

Ad Hoc Findingg

Comparison of All Three Treatments

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to
test the null hypothesis that the sample means of the three
treatments were equal.(HOaflsfifflf I The experimentally
determined F statistic using the SAS (Statistical Analysis
System) program was 0.743. The given value for statistical
significance at the 0.05 level of significance from the
table given in (Appendix C) for 2 and 57 degrees of freedom
was 3.17. The table can also be used to determine the
degree of confidence one can have in saying that the means
are not equal. With the F value of 0.743, the table shows
that the probability of the sample means not being equal is
0.48. The results are not statistically significant at the
.05 level, the F=0.743 with 2 and 57 degrees of freedom
3.17 was required for the result to be significant at the
0.05 level. The null hypothesis could not be rejected.
The ANOVA results as obtained using the SAS program are

summarized in Table 6.

50

Table 6

ANOVA for three Presentation Modes of the West Virginia
Written Tests for Driver Licensure

 

 

 

 

Source dF SS MS F PR-->_F
Model(Among) 2 33.6 16.8 0.743 0.4800
Error (Within) 57 1288.05 22.5
Corrected Total 59 1321.65
Treatment 2

 

 

Significance = 3.17 at the .05 level
The coefficient of variation was 42.6338, and the R Square (whic

measures how much variation dependent variable can be accounted)
was 0.25423. The grade mean was 11.15.

51

Video Tape Test vs Abbreviated English Syntax Test

A one-way analysis of variance procedure compared the
Video Tape Test and the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for
the Deaf. The results were not statistical significant at
the .05 level (F=0.92, dF 1.38, PR F 0.3438). With 1 and 38
degrees of freedom, an F of 4.10 was required for the
result to be significant at the 0.05 level. The
experimental F statistic using the SAS was 0.92. The

coefficient of variation was 34.2742, and the R square was

 

0.023610. The grade mean was 11.55. The results are shown

in the ANOVA Table 7.

Table 7

ANOVA for Video Tape Test Compared to the Abbreviated
English Syntax Test for the Deaf for Driver Licensure

 

 

 

 

Source dF SS MS F PR-->_F
Model (Among) l 14.40 14.40 0.92 0.3438
Error (Within) 38 595.50 15.67
Corrected Total 39 609.90
Treatment 1 14.40

 

 

Significance = 4.10 at .05 Level

52

Summary of Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative
effectiveness of three presentation modes of the West
Virginia written test for a driver's license with hearing
impaired applicants (see Appendix A).

Based on statistical analysis, the original null
hypotheses were not rejected. The analysis of variance
test showed no significant difference between video tape
test and the regular written test at the .05 level (F=1.12,
dF 2.57, PR ---> F 0.2970). The video tape test and the
Abbreviated English Syntax for the Deaf showed no
significant difference with the regular written test. The
mean scores for the video tape test were higher than the
regular written test and the Abbreviated English Syntax
Test, but not significantly different.

A two-way analysis of variance with high and low
verbal ability grouping was also performed, but did not
show the difference to be significant among the three
different treatments.

A one-way analysis of variance was also performed
between the video tape test and the Abbreviated English
Syntax Test for the Deaf, but did not show the difference
to be significant at the .05 level.

The final chapter will include: (1) A summation of

this study including methods and findings, (2)

53

Interpretation and discussion, (3) Findings, (4) The
conclusions warranted by the resulting data or findings,
(5) Recommendations and (6) Recommendations for further

study.

Chapter V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

This chapter includes:

(1) a summation of the study, including methods and
findings

(2) conclusions warranted by the findings;

(3) a discussion

(4) recommendations and

(5) recommendations for further study

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative
effectiveness of three presentation modes of the West
Virginia written test for a driver's license with hearing
impaired applicants. The presentation modes were: (1)
Regular written test; (2) Video tape test; and (3)
Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf. (See Appendix
A and B). The study compared the video with the regular
written test, and the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for
the Deaf with the regular written test to determine if

54

55

either test was more effective than the regular written
test. This investigation involved a Randonized Block or
Split-Plot design.

The subjects for the study were high school age
students from West Virginia School for the Deaf, in Romney,
West Virginia, and hearing impaired high school age
students who were attending the West Virginia
Rehabilitation Center in Institute, West Virginia. A total
of 54 students agreed to participate in this study from the
West Virginia School for the Deaf and six students
volunteered to participate from the West Virginia
Rehabilitation Center.

The procedure used for collection of data included:
(1) completion of a pre-test or blocking variable, the
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level, Form A, and
(2) completion of one of three modes of the West Virginia
Written Test for driver licensure applicants. (See
Appendix A and B).

The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level,
Form A was used as a blocking variable to place subjects in
one of the three modes of the written test for driver
licensure. These students were assigned by stratified
sampling to take one of the three different modes of the
written test for driver licensing, which were: (1) regular
written test; (2) video tape test; and (3) Abbreviated
English Syntax Test for Deaf. The twenty-five item multiple

choice test administrated was hand-scored using answer

56

sheets and a grading booklet on a total correct, raw score
basis.

To analyze the data, a one-way analysis of variance
was applied. The results indicated no significant

differences at the 0.5 level.

Video vs Regular -F = 1.12, dF 1,38, PR F 0.2970
Significance = 4.10 at the .05 Level

English Syntax vs. Regular -F = 0.16, dF 1,38, PR F 0.6955
Significance = 4.10 at the .05 Level

Video vs English Syntax -F = 0.92, dF 1,38, PR P 0.3438
Significance = 4.10 at the .05 Level

Video vs Regular vs English Syntax
-F = 0.74, dF 2.57, PR F 0.4800
Significance = 3.17 at the .05 Level

The Mean Scores for the video tape test were higher
than the regular written test, and the abbreviated English
Syntax Test (Refer to Table 2).

A two-way analysis of variance was also (i.e. ANOVA)
applied at the .05 level. The purpose of the two-way ANOVA
was to address the question of whether the reading scores
achieved on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown
Level, Form A was major factor in determining if the video
tape test or the abbreviated English Syntax test for the
deaf was more effective than the regular written test. The
two-way ANOVA addressed the question: Will subjects who
score high on the verbal tests score equally as high on the
written driving test? On the basis of the reading scores

of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown Level, Form

 

57

A, the subjects were divided into high and low verbal
ability group. The top ten scores of each group (Video,
Regular, English Syntax) were placed in the high verbal
group. A variable matrix with means is shown in Table 5 in
Chapter IV. The results of the two-way analysis of variance
with high and low verbal grouping did not show any
significant differences among the three different
treatments. The results are shown in the ANOVA Table 4 in

Chapter IV.

 

58

FINDINGS

The mean scores of hearing impaired volunteer subjects
taking the West Virginia Written Test for driver
licensure on the video tape test were not significantly
different from the mean scores of hearing impaired
subjects taking the regular written test.

The mean scores of hearing impaired volunteer subjects
taking the West Virginia Written Test for driver
licensure on the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for
the Deaf were not significantly different from the
mean scores of hearing impaired subjects taking the
regular written test.

The mean scores of hearing impaired volunteer subjects
taking the video tape test were not significantly
different than the hearing impaired subjects taking

the regular written test and the Abbreviated English
Syntax Test for the Deaf.

The hearing impaired volunteer subjects scoring highest
on the Stanford Diagnostic Test, Brown Level, Form A,
did not necessarily score equally as high on the

three different modes of the West Virginia written

tests for driver licensing.

59

The hearing impaired low verbal ability subjects
scored higher on the Abbreviated English Syntax Test

for the Deaf than the hearing impaired high verbal

ability subjects.

60

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are based on the findings of

this study.

The mean scores of hearing impaired subjects taking
the West Virginia written test for driver licensure

on the video tape test was not more effective

than the regular written test. The writer concluded
that the video tape test did not prove to be more
effective than the regular written test. The writer
also concluded that the video tape test was apparently
not a valuable service for the hearing impaired as a
group, but can provide individuals an option with
which they might feel more comfortable. It may not

be the fault of the video tape method of presentation
as much as hearing impaired subjects having linguistic
deficiency.

The means scores of hearing impaired subjects taking
the West Virginia written test for driver licensure

on the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf
were not significantly different than hearing impaired
subjects taking the regular written test. The
Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf did not
prove to be more effective than the regular written

test.

61

Subjects with low verbal skills might find it
advantageous to take the West Virginia Written Test

for driver licensure with the Abbreviated English

Syntax for the Deaf.

62

DISCUSSION

 

The results from an analysis of the data from the
three different presentation modes (see Appendix A and B)
of the West Virginia written test for driver licensure did
not prove the sample means to be statistically
significant.

The coefficient of variations on all of the analysis
of variance procedures was quite large relative to the mean
and would suggest much variability in this study.

The R—Square is the amount of variability independent
variables are able to explain in relation to dependent
variables. The Squares were low in the analysis of
variance procedures and suggest the treatment was not a
"major factor" in the test scores. In the analysis of
variance comparison between video tape test and regular
written test, the R-Square was .028584, which says the
independent variable explained about 3% of total
variability in grade. Other factors explained about 97%.

A number of reasons might account for the
ineffectiveness of the video tape test and the abbreviated

English Syntax Test for the Deaf.

(1) The students at the West Virginia School for
the Deaf were not well adapted to American

Sign Language, which was used on the Video

63

Tape Test. Mr. Haught, Principal of the
school, in a personal interview stated,
"Their students do not use the American Sign
Language, but use a different version of slang
sign language which they acquired from their
teachers, who are graduates of Galladette
College in Washington, D.C. It was later
found out that the American Sign Language is
used by hearing impaired adults at the
Rehabilitation Center.

(2) Many terms relating to West Virginia traffic
laws or driving practices are unknown to many
hearing impaired persons. This parallels
Finesilver's opinion (1962:90). If the
subjects of this study did not know the
vocabulary of driving terms on West Virginia
traffic laws, it would make little difference
as to what mode would be most effective in
administering the written driver licensing
test for hearing impaired applicants.

(3) It is difficult to know if all of these
students really tried to do their best when
taking the three different driving test.

They volunteered to take the test, but some

may not have been interested in the subject.

Dr. Sendelbaugh (1980:542) stated that hearing

impaired students do not perceive instructions completely

64

and therefore cannot adequately identify information. He
concluded that there was not sufficient time given on the
films to allow the students to comprehend and execute the
procedures within an acceptable time-frame.

It was of interest to note on the two-way analysis of
variance that the subjects who scored the highest on the
reading test did not necessarily score the highest on the
West Virginia written drivers test for driver licensure.

It was also interesting to note that the low verbal ability
students scored higher on the Abbreviated English Syntax
Test than the high verbal ability students. This could
indicate that the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the
Deaf is more effective with students that have poor reading
skills.

The raw scores of the subjects were not particularly
high on the three presentation modes of the West Virginia
written test for driver licensure: (1) Video Tape Test; (2)
Regular written Test D; and (3) Abbreviated English Syntax
Test for the Deaf. Applicants need to score correctly 20
out of 25 questions to pass this test, and in this study 3
out of 60 subjects achieved this score.

The raw test scores confirm the statement made in
Chapter I by Mr. Czernicki that, "Hearing impaired students
at the West Virginia School for Deaf have difficulty
passing the knowledge test for driver licensing." The
scores also parallel the statement made in Chapter 1 by Mr.

St. Pierre who stated, "I can state from personal

 

65

experience that a very high percentage of deaf persons that
I have worked with in the past fourteen years do have
difficulty passing the written test on the first try,
especially those deaf from birth."

The writer undertook this study in an attempt to
develop a better mode of testing hearing impaired
applicants for the West Virginia Driver's Licensing Test.
The writer was interested in finding the most effective
mode for testing beginning hearing impaired applicants in
the West Virginia Driver's Licensing Test.

A review of literature in Chapter II indicated that
hearing impaired persons may have excellent driving
records, but often have difficulty with comprehending the
wording on written tests. It seemed only fair that hearing
impaired applicants for the beginners driver's license
should be able to take the written portion of the West
Virginia Driver's Test in the language they find most
comprehensive, and the true language of the hearing
impaired is sign language. It was for the above reason
that the writer developed a video tape test from the West
Virginia Regular Written Test D, with an interpreter using
sign language.

Before the analysis of data, the writer expected the
sample means of the video tape test to be statistically
significant, and vastly superior to the other two modes.

It is still the writer's belief that hearing impaired

applicants will be more successful in passing the written

66

portion of the West Virginia Driver's Licensing Test by
using the Abbreviated English Syntax Test for the Deaf or
the video tape test.

On the basis of results from the one-way analysis of
variance and the two-way analysis of variance procedures,
the video-tape test and the Abbreviated English Syntax Test
for the Deaf did not prove to be significantly more
effective than the Regular Written Test D. The sample means
of the video tape test (12.15) were higher than the regular
written Test D (10.95), but not statistically significant
at the .05 Level (See Table 2)

The study did provide information that low verbal
ability subjects scored higher on the Abbreviated English
Syntax Test for the Deaf than on the regular written Test D
or the video-tape test. (See Table 5) The study also
provided information that the high verbal ability subjects
did not necessarily score the highest on the West Virginia

Driver's Licensing Test.

RECOMMENDATION

At the present time West Virginia should not change

its licensing procedure with hearing impaired applicants.

67

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

 

1. A replication of this study should be attempted

4.

using a larger group of hearing impaired subjects.
With increased sample size, means tend to become
a more stable representation of group performance.
The larger the sample, the greater confidence

one can place in a relative minor difference
between means. (Popham, 1967:134) Large-sample
statistics involve smaller sampling errors,
greater reliability, and increase the power

of a statistical test applied to the data (Issac
and Michael: 1971,69).

A replication of this study should be attempted
using a control group having a background in driver
education in the secondary schools.

Perform a replication of this study with each
hearing impaired subject given a West Virginia
Driver Licensing handbook. The subjects could
study this handbook before taking one of the
presentation modes of the West Virginia written
test for driver licensure.

A replication of this study should be attempted
using a modified slang version of the American
sign language for the video tape tests. This is
important if students from the West Virginia School

for the Deaf are to be used as subjects.

68

REFERENCES

Aaron, James E. and Marlond K. Stasser "Driving Task
Instructiony Dual-Control, Simulation, and Multiple-
Car", MacMillan Publishing Co, Ave. New York, P-15.

Barr, Anthony J., James H. Goodnight, et a1.,
SAS Manual (Raleigh, N.C.: Sparks Press, 1979).

Bowker and Lieberman, Engineering Statistics
(Englewood Cliffs., N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1959),
286.

Brainin, Paul A. et al, Impact Study 9g Driving by
Special Populations. Vol. IL Conduct 9: the Project
and State-of-the Art, Prepared for U. S. Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Contract DOT-HS-5-01206. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
DOT-HS-802-329, April, 1977.

Campbell, Susan, "New Driver License Test Designed for
Deaf Persons," Hillbilly Whittler, West Virginia
Association of the Deaf, Inc., Vol 2, No. 3
(May-June, 1981).

Coppin, R.S. and R.C. Peck,The Totally Deaf Driver 13
California, Part I (Sacramento, California: The
Department of Motor Vehicles, 1964).

 

Coppin, R.S. and R.C. Peck, The Totally Deaf Driver ip
California, Part II (Sacramento, California: The
Department of Motor Vehicles, December, 1964).

Crotched Mountain Foundation. Personal correspondence
between Mr. Paul St. Pierre, Driver Education Instructor,
and the writer. October 13, 1980.

Cunningham, Dean, "The Driving Simulator--A Better Way to
Teach Deaf Drivers," The Volta Review, Vol. 72
(September, 1970), 372-375.

Czernicki, Edward. Personal interview. Jackson's Mills.
West Virginia. April, 1979.

Department of Motor Vehicles for the States of California,
Delaware, Florida, and Wyoming. Personal correspondence
with the writer. July 9-10, 1980.

69

Ebel, R.L., "The Relation of Item Discrimination to Test
Reliability," Journal 93 Educational Measurement
(1967), 125-128.

Finesilver, Sherman G., National Symposium 9p the Deaf
Driving and Employabililty (University of Denver,
College of Law, Colorado, 1962).

Finesilver, Sherman G., "They Can't Hear, but They Get the
Message," Traffic Safety (August, 1961), 10-12.

Finesliver, Sherman G., "The Driving Records of Deaf
Drivers." The Frat, National Fraternal Society
of the Deaf (January-February 1968), 3.

Furth, Hans G., "A Comparison of Reading Tests Norms of
Deaf and Hearing Children," American Annuals g;
the Deaf, Vol. III (1966), 461-462.

Furth, Hans G., Thinking Without Langgage, Psychological
Implications g; Deafness (New York: Free Press, 1966).

 

 

Furth, Hans G., "Deafness and Learning," A Psychological
Approach (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1973).

Hill, Gary. Personal interview. Charleston, West Virginia.
June 15, 1980.

Jones, Margaret, "Non-Verbal License Test Developed in
California," Traffic Safety (April, 1977), 31.

Markowin, Boris V, Through The Barrier g; Deafness and
Isolation (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1960).

McClure, W.J., "Current Problems and Trends in the
Education of the Deaf Children," American
Annuals pf the Deaf, Vol. 119 (October, 1974),
500-502.

Osguthorpe, Russell T., Gary L. Long and Richard G.
Ellsworth. "The Effects of Reviewing Class Notes
for Deaf and Hearing Students". American Annal of
the Deaf. Vol. 125, No 5 (August, 1980).

Olson, Leann, "A Decade of Success with Media for
Pre-School Deaf Children," American Annals g:
the Deaf, Vol. 119 (October, 1974), 500-502.

Popham, W. James, Educational Statistics, Use and
Interpretation (New York: Harper and Row. 1967),
164.

70

Schein, Jerome D., The Deaf Community: Studies ip
the Social Psychology 9f Deafness (Washington, D.C.:
Gallaudet College, 1968).

Schneidman, Dave, "Deaf Drivers are Safer, Traffic Experts
Say," The Chicagg Tribune, January 5, 1975, 8.

Sendelbaugh, Joseph W., "Captions with AV Materials,"
American Annuals of the Deaf, 125 Pt 2
(August- December, 1980), C- -21.

Sendelbaugh, Joseph W., "Driver Simulator Communications
Mode for Hearing-Impaired Students," American Annals
g; the Deaf, Vol. 125 (August, 1980), 542-546.

 

Schrader, Joe 5., "Ohio State Measures Cognitive Knowledge
or D.E. Students," Driver Education Digest, Vol. XI,
No. 3 (1979-1980).

Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael. Handbook in Research
and Evaluation (San Diego, California. Edits Publishers,
1971)

"Teaching Deaf Students May Take Longer, But It Is More
Rewarding," Driver Education Digest, Vol. IX, No. 4
(1977-78), 2.

Trybus, Raymond and Michael Karchmer, "School Achievement
Scores of Hearing-Impaired Children: National Data on
Achievement Status and Growth Patterns," American
Annals g: the Deaf, Vol. 112 (April, 1977), 67.

Vernon, McCay, "Fifty Years of Research on the Intelligence
of the Deaf and Hard-of Hearing Children: A Review of
Literature and Discussion of Implications," Journal
of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, Vol. 31, No. 9
(September, 1970), 258- 267.

Vernon, McCay, "Potential, Achievement, and Rehabilitation
in the Deaf Population." Rehapilitation Literature,
Vol. 31, No. 9 (September, 1970), 258-267.

West Virginia School for the Deaf. Personal correspondence
between Mr. Edward Czernicki, Driver Education
Instructor, and the writer. June 2, 1981.

Wrightston, J. Wayne, Merian S. Arnow, and Sue Muskowitz,
"Developing Reading Test Norms for Deaf Children,"
American Annals g; the Deaf, Vol. 108 (May, 1963),
311-316.

 

APPENDICES

71

D 325 ’ WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE D
OPERATORS AND CHAUFFEURS EXAMINATION

mummmmamhu
M Al m 00 m and
- hflmam.‘

 

thaws-ouwmflnwfimu

Auunhfluduuwm
tuna-”drip“
afinmmhuhmmhfi
tutu-uni.“

smuiuuau-hq—nn 3

Ab~b~lm
slut-nuns
chm-dun“.
anhubu‘

 

t lunar-luglfiumnuflwfim“
”mm“
Ann.“
t roan—mucus
0. human...“
§~.~*.'~..“

tmuamaumnummofipn 5

Ahhpfifi . ,
tuh~* ~
Shannan-fl“
chub“...

C I~.~*‘~~C~

bunny-m
tin--.“

 

7. ~‘D-’I~“~~~~ 7

Aflfimm
tufiflbouhhflhbm
G. Gunman-ml..-“
cucumum-‘m

I. lmnfiuowfiumoimfiunm

Lana-mum’s...“
thmfi‘fldun‘.

a. ~~~Id~bl~d~~
a Minna—“u...“

shuugmuumunu ' 9

Auuuumwmu
I. Onfiflbhuq

a. “duh-unfit.
aha-“mull. -

 

It mmbuuuufl~nunmund

A Mfluflb~m
son-nun...

a. ”Chadd-m,
smut-um

atmnum'mmumunu

Lnflhhfibmm
‘~‘~““~m 11
c. “annuals...“

O. ”dupluwb‘.

ummuummmmunaucm~ 12 a
unhmumummmnd

LII-chain...“

& “amt.“

an..-“ . ll
cannon-rum ‘

   

72

_.~__—...'.- --

amufi-Clbfldnudthum 13‘
A MmDQMdh‘
I. ”mud“
:mum" ~ ..
fl. Mun~~~d~fl
nun-unbounuuuu-uuuu -
thmvflqhum

6 u”.w..

9. 80M“ . . .

- u@n*-~~u~-m~~~mu~~nm
A. “CD'u‘fifi " '

I. “amount-Ida.

cwummmuflumm
Quantum-n-..

fibuMQMdnhmwuu-m I
mag-mum . I

l

l

A ”bummed-“

Imhfiflmum 18
c. humommmhufl-“

'u. manna-mum; -----

if. mu‘cauumdnmoum _
“ya-"n1... ‘ ""

A “gunman“
twain-hm!“

.6. “on“:
tummdm.‘

sum-“5‘3““

~*-~C~C*
thwbn.
than“
I..-“

 

I. hudubafl‘
fih-.-‘o*“.~~.~~nm

19
§
memum.“ .
I. ~~d~m*
alumna-um... . .:
fill-“hm.“ -
a. luflmunfimumnm I m
1

 

 

Ammumuduu—t
thwlfib‘fiflh’“ '
nun—nun.“ ,
thunmlfih~ho~

fimnohml-b-“w‘hbfiflafi
than“...

llama-own m .r. .vkw WW. 1 'II

a “tannin-IQ

II. u~mu~~¢~mam

human—nap...- 7
Atari“
turn.”

“'71-. . .

 

 

‘lnmnfl‘mmnd
Ahbhuuubum
mnlfifium
¢mbhmmu
thymwlmhunflu

Ruth—-

3

73

WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE
OPERATORS AND CHAUFFEURS EXAMINATION

FOR THE DEAF

mamauuamm
manna-main:
hfluumm

 

_A. man-mm.-
_I. Guiana-claim
- _.C. Wammuhmwm
_D. Mum-lad. 3

3. “0.09?

£. mmmummmhmmuw
mmmmw

_A. comm.
_l. Tomcat-but.
_¢. Team-“momma“.
_..D. Tel-norm

 

L'ILI'.
III {I
I: '
I?
‘ I
L:

7. mint-hummus” ' -----

 

_..A. ”mun-m —

 

 

_A. Nummmwm
—t Mama-thalamus.
_c. maummmuupMu-m °
.—0. Moan-tum...“

I. mmbmuummhmmm
rum

_A. Incl-m

_,l. mammal“
_c. mun-among;
_D. summon-u

I
I
O. mmummummm |
I
I

 

 

 

_A. an
_t mmmmwm
._.c. “Sauna-lab”.
_ ”Lenten-tunic.
a. TmMWDWQHdeM
“Wynn“?
—t W". “
:6. ”m.

 

13.

14.

1S

1..

1T.

1'.

1‘

74

mumwuamammmmm

_A. man.
:3. Don'tmaivooumhoun'orohu.
_& mammwm-rummmawm

Mdoooyudhutowlnw

._.A. c-qunouhomounyourorumoclnm
_L "ammo-osmium“;

-3. Imtoot.

_.D. Gnuoomoodngmoomrooy.

mmmmvouuuuommmyoum

_A. manual.

_.I. mmwum

._c. deoaouomomohuotbul.
_D. ”await-nocturnal.

Mammal”

_A. Clohdgnllullommm
_l. Mlonuubuouauouolnu.
._.c. alumnae-Imam
._.D. asylum-nonunion.

mahooulmunotvoumordouhyowm
Humour

_A. Tmmummonnoumflu -¢I.
_l. Tanya-“mum

_c. mum-narrow.

_D. Koooou-uuouuoonamm

Mum-w

_L tummmtmmw
_l. “Moos

“ammummmm
_A. Wuhan.“

_.l. manhole; , -.

....c. ”mum.-
_D. mouse-Hum
man-ammuuuuupoummmm

._.A ”mmmmam

_I. Woodman“

_c. memo-um”

_O. mama’s-mammogram

mammalian-unwound»?

.Yootkoonmmuflommmm
m

”n”

_l. once-low“

_c. ”amount-um

_D. NOMIuMNOrounhryowm
Mmthw.v.uowmon-Iyou
arm?

_A. mum

your.
_0. Murmur-vow
mummhmmmm

_l. MMToluurouubouloam
_..c. human.
_0. Wollorpuruuutom

Yummmmm

_A. SluylueurJVuIHoroulou

._l. MMUmmmmun-nu
um

....c. Mammalian.

._O. “nonhuman”.

“.ooc ~~-

22

W;

 

 

 

I

 

 

APPENDIX C

 

75

 

 

918.8. 8. 8.8. 8.8 .8. .8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 88. 8.8 88 88
g F. 3.3. =33. 3.3. 3.3. 33. 3.3. “.3. 3.3. “.3 ‘3’: '39- ii
g '83:. 53:. i. 9.3. $13. 3?: i=5 33*. 9i". 3F: ”a“: “.8. ’33
8 $33 3.3. 9:3. 9:3! ’33. 33 5:3. 3.3! 8‘8 3.3. 3.9: 3.3. 8'23.
a 3.3. P: 3.3. $33. '83. 3’: ”.3. 3.3. 3.3! "i=3 8.8. £3. 3."
s 3.3. 3.! .'-‘: 33 .3. =5 8‘38 3.9. “I3. ”3. 3'3 ”.3. ".3
8 3.3. 3. . 3.3. '3’ 3.3. 3.3. 52‘. 8'8! 828 9:3. $3.3" 8.3 9f.
2 8: z a: 8: 8: 2:: 8: 8.8: 8: e: 8: 8:
3 so; .38; so: .35 ..;..° .44 ..:..: ..;.: .:.: .3; .. .. ..:..
.. :8. :5: 3.52 .'-‘: 33. '81:. 3.3. 39. fig 3?. 3.9: 8‘. 3.8 32':
on“! on“ 8.0" out“ won on" o-o-o onu- our. o-oou uuuu on.
i a 3.3. 3.9. 3.3. =3 .8 3." g3. 3'3. 53.8.: 3.“. 3.? =.=
FIN o-ofl I“! FIN o-ofi Ii"! win. out oli- -- uooi
i . :8 a: :8. a: :3 1:8 :28 :3 =9. 3:. 8; 3: a:
3 "‘ .ioi .ioi o-ioi o-ioi uioi o-ioo oioi o-ioi o-ioi- .ioi .ioi '--i
I: 8.8888888. 8888.88.88 8888888888.
8 on“! on" It" on" no! I!!! I!“ I!!! uoo I“! no! no! an
”a 888.8. 888.8. 8888: 88.8.8. 5888888888
3.. as: 3:: :3 as: 8: 8‘: a: 8.8. :8 a: :3
8;" .ioiéoi—ioi-ioi chi-iii °o-i '1.“ 4.; 'oo .ioi-ioioioi
52 8.8. 8.8. 88. .8: 8.8 8.8. 8.8 8.8. 888.88.888.88
NH oooo o-ooo o-ooo woo-u o-ioi on" on". o-oou can can o-oo
385.183.1388 8.3. 513.83.83.33! 3.” 9.3 3.3. 83 3."
GIN ooh oooo on an on" an o-Ioo o-ioi o-ioi o-oi o-oo uioi
.. 92.3.83 8.15. '82:. ‘83". 8’. a): 8383.83.83.88
' oooo oooo oooo oon oooo oooo oioi oioi ooro um us an no.
.. s 2 =8 2: z: a: 2: 8.8. 8: 8:: a: s: a:
oioi oioi oioi oioi oioi oioi oioi oi oi oioi oioi oioi oioi oioi
. .‘i ’83. .9: 3‘23. .‘o‘. 3‘23. 9:8. =3 3.9 35*. =3 9:3. 8.3;
a. N. “H “H a. ‘6 ”N oioo IN OUR ”N “N

.. ,8: a: a: 8:.- :8 :38 as a: 3:: a: a: a: a:
oooo oioo' oioo' oioi oioo' oioo' oioi oioui oioo' oioi oioi oioi oioi
. 3.51 3.3. 85! 3.3. 3.3. '83-“. 3.3% =5": ‘33." 8:. 33. fig 3".
G. G. “Q .9 On I” ”O I. '0 NH IQ
.. as a :8 a: .88.: a: a: a: 8:: 8: 8: 8: a:
oiJoioi oiv' oioo' oioI oi' oioi oioi oioi oioi oioo oioioioi

~ 33.34.323.33. 8.83. 8.". 8‘2" 8.13.88.38.18.-
"Q 0‘ CC oov C. Q. Q'. “6 Q. Q. I. I.
- .'-=. .‘-‘-. 3.3. 3.3. .‘i 3.3. 3.! 3.! 8:3 8‘. 3.8 3.3. 3.3.
'h Ch Ch uh Ch ”0 ”O 00 0.. HO. DO “0 I.
assassaagaggggs

 

 

DEGREES OF FREEDOM