OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERFORMANCE OF SEVERELY AND PROFOUNDLY HEARING
IMPAIRED CHILDREN ON AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL
COMMUNICATION PRESENTATIONS OF THE

BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

By

Daun Christine Dickie

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Special Education Administration

1979

ABSTRACT

PERFORMANCE OF SEVERELY AND PROFOUNDLY HEARING
IMPAIRED CHILDREN ON AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL
COMMUNICATION PRESENTATIONS OF THE
BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS
By

Daun Christine Dickie

Numerous educators and researchers have argued as
tO the appropriate methods to be utilized in the education
Of severely and profoundly hearing impaired Children. The
two major methodologies used in educational training pro-
grams today are Aural/Oral and Total Communication, which
differ primarily in the addition Of a manual form for the
latter approach.

In the midst Of such controversy, federal and state
mandates have been approved which require that the language
performance Of hearing impaired children be assessed using
appropriate, nondiscriminatory measures. However, to date,
nO standardized testing instrument has been shown tO be
appropriate for use with this population when viewed in
terms Of presentation method (Aural/Oral or Total Communi-
cation).

In view Of the above, this study investigated the

receptive language performance Of elementary-age severely

Daun Christine Dickie

and profoundly hearing impaired children using the Boehm
Test Of Basic Concepts. Fifteen Of the subjects had been
taught using an Aural/Oral approach, and 15 utilized a
Total Communication approach, resulting in a total of 30
subjects.

Each of the 50 test items Of the Boehm Test Of
Basic Concepts was presented to each child twice, using
the communication method with which each subject was
familiar. The subjects' task was tO mark a pictorial rep-
resentation Of the stimulus item.

The results revealed that the children Of the Total
Communication group performed significantly better than did
their Aural/Oral counterparts. Age Of subjects was not
found tO be related with test performance for either group
investigated.

The reliability Of results Obtained during test-
retest administration was found to be high for both groups
of subjects. However, the internal reliability Of this
test was higher for subjects Of the Aural/Oral group. This
was due to a ceiling effect for scores correct which was
evidenced for subjects using a Total Communication approach.

These findings suggest that differences do exist in
the receptive language skills, as measured by this test,
between hearing impaired children using an Aural/Oral or

Total Communication approach. The results are related tO

Daun Christine Dickie

current concerns for educational programming, and impli-

cations for future research are discussed.

DEDICATION

TO my parents, for their faith
and support despite undergraduate

days and grades.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation tO the
members Of my committee, Dr. Herbert J. Oyer, Dr. Charles
Henley, Mrs. Vivian Stevenson, and Dr. Richard Featherstone,
for their valuable time and thoughtful contributions.

I am also indebted to Mr. Rob Young and Dr. Grace
Iverson Of the Lansing School District Department Of
Evaluation Services, for their assistance in the evaluation
and interpretation aspects Of this study.

Appreciation is further extended tO Dr. Velma
Allen, Mrs. Mildred Richardson, and Mr. Malcolm Delbridge
for their support throughout the entire process Of this
research project. In addition, I wish to thank Mrs. Brenda
Hull for her active participation in this study, as well as
the numerous hours Of challenging thought which she pro—
vided.

For the friendship and support which I have experi-
enced throughout this year, I extend my affection and
appreciation to Diane, Kathy, Velma, Jody, Phyllis, and Tom.

Finally, I want to extend my extreme gratitude to
my chairman, Dr. Charles Mange, whose encouragement, expec-
tations, and belief in my ability were demonstrated through-
out a time when they were needed most.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION .

Aural/Oral Communication

Total Communication .

Investigations Related to Testing
Procedures for Hearing Impaired Children

Statement Of the Problem .

Purpose Of the Study

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Subjects
Materials
Presentation PrOcedures
Analysis

RESULTS

Main Effect of Group
Effect Of Age .
Test Reliability

DISCUSSION .

Group Differences in Test Performance

Comparison Of Test Performance With That
Of Hard- Of- -Hearing Subjects

Relationship Of Age and Subject
Performance . . . .

Types Of Subject Errors

Test Reliability

Implications Related tO the IntegratiOn .Of
Hearing Impaired Children

Implications for Future Research

iv

Page
vi

vii

13
18
18

20
20
22
24
27
29
32
33
33
36
36
39
41
42
43

44
46

APPENDICES
REFERENCES

Page
51

89

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Summary Table Of an Analysis Performed on the
Mean Scores Correct Of Both Groups (Aural/
Oral and Total Communication) and Test
Administration (First, Second, and Com-
bined Test Results)

Summary Table Of an Analysis Of Variance
Performed on the Number Of Correct Scores
Of Both Groups (Aural/Oral and Total
Communication) and Both Test Administra-
tions (First and Second)

Summary Table Of Test-Retest Reliability by
Group (Aural/Oral and Total Communication)

Summary Data Depicting the Results Of the
Kuder—Richardson Test Of Reliability by
Group (Aural/Oral and Total Communication)
and Test Administration (First and Second)

vi

Page

30

31

34

34

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A. DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS USING AN
AURAL/ORAL APPROACH . . .

B. DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS USING A TOTAL
COMMUNICATION APPROACH .

C. CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTS TO BE TESTED
USING THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

D. DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS FOR EACH ITEN
OF FORM B OF THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC
CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . .

E. SOURCE/METHOD OF MANUAL PRESENTATION FOR

THOSE ITEMS NOT FOUND IN SIGNING EXACT
ENGLISH

 

F. INTRODUCTORY DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO ALL
SUBJECTS . . . . . . . . .

G. SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPES OF RESPONSES
IN THE GROUP USING AN AURAL/ORAL APPROACH

H. SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPES OF RESPONSES
IN THE GROUP USING A TOTAL COMMUNICATION
APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPES OF RESPONSES
FOR EACH ITEM (FIRST AND SECOND TESTS)
OVER BOTH GROUPS (AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL
COMMUNICATION) COMBINED . . . .

J. SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING RAW SCORES AND

PERCENTILE EQUIVALENTS FOR STUDENTS USING

AN AURAL/ORAL APPROACH

K. SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING RAW SCORES AND

PERCENTILE EQUIVALENTS FOR STUDENTS USING

A TOTAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

vii

Page

52

54

56

59

64

66

68

71

74

77

79

Appendix

L. NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR EACH SUBJECT
BY GROUP (TOTAL COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/
ORAL) FOR BOTH TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

M. SUMMARY DATA OF TEST ITEMS WHICH HAD ZERO
OR HIGHLY LIMITED VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTS
BY GROUP (TOTAL COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/
ORAL) . . . . . . . . . . . .

N. SUMMARY DATA, BY GROUP (AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL
COMMUNICATION) AND CATEGORY (SPACE,
QUANTITY, TIME, MISCELLANEOUS) OF TEST
ITEMS WHICH WERE ANSWERED INCORRECTLY,

15 TIMES OR MORE, OVER BOTH FIRST AND
SECOND TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

viii

Page

81

83

87

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

As a result of current state and federal legislation,
educators and clinicians are presently faced with the task of
assessing the language performance of severely and profoundly
hearing impaired students. Section 121a.532 of the Rules and
Regulations for the Implementation of Part B of HuaEducation
of the Handicapped Act mandates state and local education

agencies shall ensure, at a minimum, that:

f

A. Tests and other evaluation materials:

1. Are provided and administered in the Child's
native language or other mode of communication,
unless it is clearly not feasible to do so;

2. Have been validated for the Specific purpose
for which they are used; and

3. Are administered by trained personnel in con—
formance with the instructions provided by
their producer;

B. Tests and other evaluation materials include those
tailored to assess specific areas of educational
need and not merely those which are designed to
provide a single general intelligence quotient;

C. Tests are selected and administered so as best to
ensure that when a test is administered to a child
with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills,
the test results accurately reflect the child's
aptitude or achievement level or whatever other
factors the test purports to measure, rather than
reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual,
or speaking skills (except where those skills are
the factors which the test purports to measure);

D. No single procedure is used as the sole criterion
for determining an appropriate educational program
for a child; and

E. The evaluation is made by a multidisciplinary team
or group of persons, including at least one teacher
or other specialist with knowledge in the area of
suspected disability.

F. The Child is assessed in all areas related to the
suspected disability, including, where appropriate,
health, vision, hearing, social and emotional
status, general intelligence, academic performance,
communicative status, and motor abilities (Federal

Register, 1977, pp. 42496-42497).

While the vast majority of professionals would view
such a charge as highly desirable, a paucity of standard-
ized, appropriately normed tests exists which may be reliably
used with severely and profoundly hearing impaired students.
In addition, professionals are typically unable to iden-
tify research efforts which clearly illustrate that exist-
ing standardized tests, which measure language skills, may
be reliably used with hearing impaired populations (Michi-
gan State Department of Education, 1977; Davis, 1974, 1977;
Pressnell, 1973; Cooper, 1967).

Efforts to comply with such legal mandates fre—
quently result in the indiscriminate use of language tests,
which have been normed on nonimpaired populations, with
hearing impaired persons. Such tests may or may not be
modified in an attempt to assess more accurately the per-
formance of hearing impaired individuals. For example,
the written form may be added to oral presentations of
test items in an attempt to minimize the disadvantages

encountered as a result of limited auditory input.

Modifications made may vary with the individual examiner,
thus further confounding the accuracy or reliability of the
results of such tests.

An additional alternative employed may be the use
of clinician-<xrteacher-made forms of language assessment.
An example of such a technique is suggested by the Michi-
gan State Department of Education Assessment Manual,
whereby pictures are selected and presented to the child
to elicit spontaneous written and expressive (spoken and/or
signed) language samples. In such instances, no standardi-
zation of stimulus items exists, and results are largely
based upon individual observations and judgments.

The above forms of language assessment are gen-
erally recognized as being acceptable practices when used
as a portion of a comprehensive testing battery. However,
wnen used exclusively, they fall short of meeting the
charge of providing a comprehensive and nondiscriminatory
assessment of language performance for hearing impaired
children.

The difficulty of adequately assessing language
performance of such a population is compounded by the type
of communication method utilized by the child being tested.
Presently, two major education/communication systems are
used with hearing impaired children in the United States.
The first of these, the Aural/Oral approach, stresses the

development of communication skills by emphasizing oral

speech, speechreading, and auditory training. The use of
any manual system is excluded in expressive or receptive
strategies.

The second approach, Total Communication, is
defined by Denton (1970) as including "the full spectrum
of language modes--chi1d-devised gestures, formal sign
language, speech, speechreading, fingerSpelling, reading,
and writing."

Much controversy exists in the literature as to
the benefits or appropriateness of either method (Miller,
1970; Bates, 1975; Lane, 1976; Vernon, 1972; Drumm, 1972).
However, much of the available information is emotional in
nature as opposed to data—based. The reader is frequently
confronted with position statements, rather than content-
oriented sources addressing communication method and
related testing implications.

It is the contention of this investigation that a
need exists to objectively examine appropriate standard-
ized testing procedures for hearing impaired populations
as related to both education/communication methodologies.
This :study, then, will attempt to examine whether a
standardized measure of language performance may be reli-
ably used with severely and profoundly hearing impaired
children utilizing Aural/Oral or Total Communication
approaches, and will examine the measured receptive lan-

guage performance of these two groups. However, before

explicitly and formally stating the problem to be studied,
the research to date relative to communication methodology

and language-testing strategies will be discussed.

AuralLOral Communication

The publications advocating the use of a strictly
Aural/Oral approach for hearing impaired children are
Characterized by a profound degree of enthusiasm, but
minimal documentation. Such statements as "Oralism is
not an academic exercise. . . . It is a way of life” are
typical of the highly zealous attitudes of its prOponents
(Miller, 1970).

As has been stated, an Aural/Oral approach would
stress the teaching of communication skills utilizing
speech, speechreading, and auditory training. The use of
sign language or fingerspelling is forbidden, as it is
felt that its inclusion would impede the development of
speech (Van Uden, 1970; Olson, 1962). Much emphasis is
placed upon early amplification and auditory training to
maximize the use of any residual hearing which may be
present.

The philosophical premise motivating such a com—
mitment stresses the right of every deaf individual to
function in society as a whole (Conner, 1972). To do so
successfully, it is felt that the Child must be adequately
prepared to communicate in a normal environment (Stone,

1968; Position Paper AOEHI, 1975). This end would negate

the use of any "restricting" manual communication modes.
The premise is that a Child given the choice of speech
only,versus a combination of speech and manual strategies,
would most certainly choose the "easier" communication
method at the expense of successful auditory/oral develop-
ment (Owrid, 1972). Documentation for such a predicting
attitude is not available in the literature to date. The
difficulty of providing a truly Aural/Oral education is
readily acknowledged by its prOponents (Stone, 1968).
However, enthusiastic position papers, plentiful in the
literature, serve as motivating sources for continued
application.

No data-based articles using large numbers of stu-
dents have been identified which objectively legitimize an
Aural/Oral approach. Further, in no report has the benefit
of such an approach for speech, speechreading, or auditory
training development been shown to be superior to that of
Total Communication. The majority of articles typically
describe specific successful case studies, or deal with
broad generalizations relative to the needs of the hearing
impaired population as a whole (Connor, 1977; Lane, 1976;
Miller, 1970; Blevins, 1976). Proponents frequently point
out the need for quantifiable, supportive research‘UDillus-
trate the superiority of an Aural/Oral approach. Such a

charge was made to the profession as early as 1917 by

Goldstein and continues to be reiterated by current authors.
However, to date, no such quantifiable results are avail-

able.

Total Communication

 

Total Communication is typically understood to
include all aspects of the Aural/Oral approach, as well as
the addition of fingerspelling and the use of signs (Furfey,
1974). Proponents of this approach stress the utilization
of all available forms of input, and claim that the hear—
ing impaired child is better able to assimilate language.
This belief is predicated upon such factors as:
1. The "invisibility” of numerous speech sounds
(Hardy, 1970);

2. The dual or multiple meanings of words in the
English language which require contextual and/
or visible cues to determine the meaning; and

3. The importance of receptive language skills

being established during the critical early
years of life (Alterman, 1970) as a prerequi-
site skill to that of speech acquisition
(Olson, 1972).

Although a broad definition of Total Communica-
tion is generally recognized and accepted by educators,
several forms of the necessary manual aspects of communi-

cation presently exist (Bornstein, 1973). Examples of

these are Seeing Essential English, Signed English, Sign-
ing Exact English, Amaslan, and Visual English. The fact
that multiple sign systems may be operating within the
inclusive categorycxfTotal Communication has been criti-
cized by professionals favoring an Aural/Oral approach
(Blevins, 1976). Educators of both of these philosophical
predispositions stress the need for quantifiable research
documenting the benefits of each sign system, if such exist.

As is true for the Aural/Oral method, numerous
subjective articles may be found which advocate the use of
Total Communication. McCay Vernon (1972) stresses the need
for such an approach from a "common sense" point of View.
He states that the National Association of the Deaf has
officially endorsed the use of Total Communication. This
endorsement by deaf persons themselves, who "know better
than anyone else the terrible educational and psychologi-
cal deprivation resulting from a restriction to just oral-
ism" (p. 530), is felt by the author to be justification
for the use of such a combined approach.

Many of the studies which do utilize any form of
measurement techniques to document claims made, may be
based upon the performance of a single subject. Olson
(1972) describes the linguistic development of a preschool
hearing impaired child over a three-year period during
which ”Sign Language therapy" was stressed. He concludes

that "the child has a big jump on those acoustically

handicapped children who are still not attending to lip
movement at age three" (p. 399). Articles of this type,
based upon isolated samples, lend minimal support for any
approach.

During recent years, research has been undertaken to
document, on a broad scale, the benefits of a Total Communi-
cation approach. Vernon, Westminster, and Koh (1971)
studied the speech and language skills of 123 graduates of
three—year Oral preschool programs. Their performance was
compared to that of (l) deaf children of deaf parents (man-
ual communication between parents and child assumed), and
(2) deaf children who had received no preschool training.
Their results showed that deaf students who had received
early manual training and no preschool experience were
superior in academic and language performance to those stu-
dents who had experienced an Oral preschool program. It
_ should be noted, however, that the subjects studied were
in their teenage years at the time of the comparative
investigation. Numerous variables were not controlled,
including the fact that the majority of all subjects inves-
tigated did not remain in or attend Aural/Oral programs.

Several large-scale descriptive studies which are
frequently used to support the use of Total Communication
are described by Nix (1975). Babbidge (1965) reports edu-
Cational and achievement data on 269 schools and classes

for the deaf, involving a total of 23,330 children.

10

The resulting implication of this study is that low
achievement levels of hearing impaired students are posi-
tively related to Aural/Oral program instruction.

In a survey of 26 public residential schools,
Denton (1966) reported on the scores of deaf students on
the Stanford Achievement Test. Those students obtaining
the highest scores on grade equivalent averages and
language performance areas were those who had deaf
parents. The author concludes that the higher average
scores may be attributed to the early learning of a manual
communication system.

Furfey (1974) studied the social abilities of 137
deaf adults. A case study format, based upon rating scales
completed following home visits, was utilized. The author
concluded that proficiency in manual communication was
highly important for the socialization skills of deaf per-
sons. He further stated that persons who had attended
Oral schools often failed to learn effectively either Aural/
Oral or a Manual communication form.

Letournea and Young (1975) describe the implemen-
tation of a Total Communication program at a school for
the deaf in New York, as well as the research procedures
planned to study its effectiveness. The results at the
time of publication, however, rely upon teacher impressions

of related language gains and social/emotional benefits.

11

Although articles and research efforts such as
those previously described may serve to promulgate much
discussion and/or dissension among professionals, they do
little to provide conclusive, objective findings for the
issue under investigation. The designs of such studies are
most frequently descriptive in nature, and are not approp-
riately conducted to determine the advisability or superi—
ority of either method. Efforts to control for such vari-
ables as degree of hearing loss, type of instruction, use
of standardized assessment tools, and age at onset of loss
have not been evidenced in the majority of these studies.

In an attempt to address needs such as those pre-
viously mentioned, White and Stevenson (1975) examined the
effectiveness of the manual form of communication utilizing
an experimental research design. They studied the perform-
ance of 45 students between the ages of 11.0 and 18.7 years,
who were enrolled in one of two public residential schools
for the deaf. Variables such as intelligence quotient and
degree of hearing loss were controlled in a stratified
random sample selection of students. A language assessment
task was presented to each student through Oral, Manual,
Total Communication, and Reading modes, in an attempt to
determine the most effective method for assimilation of
information.

Their results showed that the highest degree of

information was transmitted through the written form,

12

followed by Manual Communication and Total Communication,
respectively. The amount of information assimilated
through the Oral presentation was less than that of any of
the other above-mentioned approaches.

A replication of this study was then conducted at
a residential school for the deaf, at which the staff
espoused an Aural/Oral philosophy for the training of stu-
dents. The results of this second study supported those
of the previous investigation in terms of the effective-
ness of language reception utilizing the various communi-
cation methods.

Moulton and Beasley (1975) studied the verbal cod—
ing strategies of 26 severely hearing impaired students
utilizing a Total Communication approach. The stimulus
items selected consisted of four lists of word pairs which
were described as sharing either:

1. Similar sign--similar meaning,

2. Dissimilar sign--similar meaning,

3. Similar sign--dissimilar meaning, or

4. Dissimilar sign--dissimilar meaning.

The study was designed to obtain information rela—
tive to the verbal coding strategies used by hearing
impaired subjects as related to proficiency in processing
verbal information on a sign or semantic basis. Their
results showed that while coding was possible using either

basis, the semantic coding strategy appeared to be the more

13

efficient method. That is, hearing impaired subjects
performed best when words shared either a similar meaning
("clean-wash") or a similar meaning and similar sign
("pretty-beautiful").

These latter two studies are among the first to
provide experimental data relative to methodologies (Aural/
Oral and Total Communication) being examined, and serve as
a point of departure for continued scientific investigation
in this area. They did not, however, utilize or provide
standardized assessment techniques for measuring the lan-
guage performance of public school elementary age hearing
impaired students. In addition, no similar articles were
found which experimentally demonstrate the benefits of an
Aural/Oral approach for such a population.

Investigations Related to Testing Procedures

for Hearing Impaired Children

Vernon and Brown (1964) describe general considera-
tions for psychological testing of hearing impaired stu-
dents, and offer subjective evaluations as to the approp-
riateness of tests normed on hearing populations for use
with deaf and hard-of-hearing populations. Sachs et a1.
(1974), in addressing the issue of psychological evalua-
tions of deaf individuals, point out that attention is
increasingly being directed to better adaptation of measure-
ment instruments for use with the hearing impaired. The

lack of normative data on hearing impaired students for the

14

majority of test instruments presently in use is identi-

fied as being a severe limitation to adequate evaluation.
Schildroth (1976) has identified factors which may

influence the legitimate application of existing tests to

hearing impaired populations. Among these is the need by

the examiner to possess a knowledge of deafness, as well as

familiarity in communicating with deaf individuals.
Large-scale standardized testing efforts of the

performance of hearing impaired students has focused pri-

marily on the areas related to academic achievement. A

Special Edition for Hearing Impaired of the 1973 Stanford

Achievement Test was standardized nationally using a strati-

fied random sample of 6,871 hearing impaired subjects.

Data are now available for students' performance from all

50 states and several foreign countries. Using this instru-

ment, Trybus and Karchma (1977) reported on the national

school achievement scores of hearing impaired children

over a three-year period. As a result of the existing

norms for this evaluation tool, it is possible to compare

an individual child's performance with those of both hearing

and hearing impaired populations. Further, the establish-

ment of such an instrument enables the use of test scores

to assist in the monitoring of pupil and program progress.
While gains have been demonstrated in the area of

assessment procedures for hearing impaired students in the

academic domain, minimal attempts have been undertaken to

15

address this need in the measurement of receptive lan-
guage skills. Rather, Siegel and Broen (1976) state that
formal tests in general are inadequate in dealing with the
wide range of children encountered. They are of the
Opinion that an excessive amount of time is spent in try-
ing to ”fit the child to the model.” They describe the
best form of language assessment as being an informed
clinician who is not overly attached to a single model of
assessment. While such an opinion may have subjective
appeal, the fact remains that neither formal tests nor
documented models of assessment have been proven to be
appropriate for hearing impaired populations.

Recently, two major studies have been conducted in
an attempt to address this need. Davis (1977) examined
the reliability of the Test of Auditory Comprehension of
Language (Carrow, 1973) when used with 18 elementary age
hearing impaired children. Ten of the subjects demon-
strated mild to moderate levels of hearing loss and used
an Aural/Oral communication approach. The remaining eight
subjects demonstrated severe to profound losses and uti-
lized a Total Communication approach. The test was admin-
istered to each child on two occasions utilizing the
communication presentation method with which each child
was familiar. Results indicated high reliability of
responses for both groups of children. Error patterns for

each group were examined and proved to be similar in type.

16

No description of individual or group scores on the test
was presented.

The author concluded that the Test of Auditory
Comprehension of Language appeared to be an appropriate
and reliable test for use in assessment of receptive
language skills of hearing impaired children. While numer-
ous variables were not controlled in subject selection,
and comparisons of individual and group performance is
not possible, this study does serve as an indicator of a
possible measure of receptive language performance for use
with hearing impaired children.

An earlier investigation was conducted by Davis in
1974 which also addressed the need for language assessment
tools. The author studied the performance of 24 hard-of-
hearing children (ages 6 years to 8 years, 11 months) on
the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (1971). Their performance
on this task was compared to that of 24 normal-hearing
children of a similar age range. Responses were analyzed
according to age level and degree of hearing loss. Per-
centile rankings revealed that 75 percent of the hearing
impaired children scored at or below the tenth percentile
when compared to the norms for normal-hearing children of
the same age or younger. This finding was particularly
significant in view of the fact that none of the hearing
impaired subjects of the study were more than two years

behind the normal-hearing subjects in academic placement,

17

and seven were enrolled in grade levels appropriate to
their chronological ages. Therefore, the fact that

75 percent of the hearing impaired subjects scored below
the tenth percentile in terms of knowledge of basic lan-
guage concepts raises crucial questions as to the proba-
bility of academic success for this population.

Results indicated that significant differences
in test performance were associated with the degree of
hearing loss. That is, the greater the loss of hearing,
the poorer were the language skills as measured by the
test. However, the author did not specify levels of hear-
ing loss other than by the use of the labels "mild" and
"moderate.” No significant differences in test perform-
ance were found between the older and younger hearing
impaired children.

These latter two studies are limited in the number
and type of subjects selected, and do not report attempts
to control for numerous possible confounding variables.
However, they do serve to illustrate test procedures which
may be utilized in the assessment of language performance
in hearing impaired populations. A study should be car—
ried out which would reveal whether an existing standard-
ized test of receptive language performance may be reli-
ably used with severely and profoundly hearing impaired
children. Further, it should attempt to provide informa-

tion relative to the performance of these children as a

18

result of the communication approaches presently being

utilized in educational programs for this population.

Statement of the Problem

Educators, researchers, and legal mandates have
stressed the need for apprOpriate, reliable assessment
instruments for use with hearing impaired children. To
date, a paucity of such evaluative tools has been demon-
strated as appropriate for use with children having sig-
nificant levels of hearing loss, and utilizing Aural/Oral
versus Total Communication. In addition, minimal informa-
tion is available to demonstrate the superiority of either

of these communication approaches for such a population.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the
receptive language performance of severely and profoundly
hearing impaired elementary children, who have been taught
using either Aural/Oral or Total Communication methods, on
the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts. The reliability of this
test for both populations of children will also be exam-
ined.
The following questions will be addressed:
1. Does the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts appear
to be an appropriate test for use with pro-
foundly hearing impaired children of both

groups?

19

Does the manner of teaching and test presen—
tation (spoken versus spoken and signed)
affect the reliability of the responses?

Do hearing impaired children taught using an
Aural/Oral approach exhibit similar patterns
of test responses on individual test items to
those taught using Total Communication?

Do differences exist between the receptive
language levels (as measured by test perform-
ance) of children taught using an Aural/Oral
approach and those taught using Total Commu-

nication?

CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

This study examined the performance of hearing
impaired subjects on a test designed to assess receptive
language skills. The method of communication (Aural/Oral
or Total Communication) which each subject had been taught
was utilized during each of two test administrations per

subject.

Subjects

A total of 30 hearing impaired students enrolled
in one of two Michigan programs for the hearing impaired
were used as subjects in this study. Both programs were
located in large urban public school systems and were
housed in regular elementary schools. Fifteen of the sub-
jects were being educated using Aural/Oral procedures,
while the remaining 15 subjects utilized a Total Commu-
nication approach.

The subjects from the Total Communication program
ranged in age from 8 years, 5 months to 13 years, 7 months
with a mean age of 10 years, 7 months. Those children from
the Aural/Oral program ranged in age from 6 years,IL1months
to 13 years, 4 months with a mean age of 10 years,£5months.

20

21

School records of audiological assessment revealed
that all subjects demonstrated a severe or profound level
of hearing loss, whereby the mean of three speech frequen-
cies (500, 1000, 2000 Hz) of 75-90 dB indicated a severe
loss and a greater than 90 dB mean loss was judged to be pro—
found (Goodman, 1965; Davis & Silverman, 1970). One child
in the Total Communication program demonstrated a severe
hearing loss, while 14 demonstrated a profound level of
hearing loss. Of the children in the Aural/Oral program,

4 demonstrated a severe loss while 11 showed profound hear-
ing losses. All subjects experienced the hearing impair—
ment prior to the age of one year. See Appendices A and B
for information on individual subjects.

All subjects were of normal intelligence as ascer—
tained by school psychological reports. The criteria
utilized required that overall scores on intelligence test
batteries resulted in an intelligence quotient of 75 or
better. No handicap other than that of hearing impairment
was demonstrated by any of the subjects. English was the
primary language of the home for all subjects. The 15 sub-
jects within each of the two programs for the hearing
impaired were the only children available within the two
school systems meeting the control specifications mentioned

above.

22

Materials

 

The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (Form B), which
consisted of 50 picture displays representing concepts
from basic kindergarten, first and second grade curriculum
materials, was used in this investigation. The author
describes this test as being a screening instrument
designed "to measure children's mastery of concepts con-
sidered necessary for achievement in the first years of
school" (Boehm, 1971, p. 3). The test is intended to iden-
tify children with language deficiencies as well as the
concepts on which children may need assistance. It is
typically presented to classroom groups rather than indi—
vidual subjects.

The 50 items contained within the test were
selected following a comprehensive examination of pre-
school and primary-level curriculum materials in the areas
of reading, mathematics, and science. Items or concepts
were selected which:

1. Occurred with considerable frequency;

Were seldom if ever explicitly defined, or were
defined in their simple forms but subsequently
used in complex forms without adequate transitions;

3. Represented relatively abstract basic concepts or
ideas; or

4. Were concepts with which the majority of students
were unfamiliar (”concept unfamiliarity") (Boehm,
1971, pp. 3-4).

The concepts selected were categorized according

to type. Twenty-three concepts related to space (example:

23

"between”), 4 related to time (example: "after"), 18
related to quantity (example: "least"), and 5 concepts
were classified as miscellaneous (example: "different").
The concepts tested and the assigned classifications are
listed in Appendix C. The items were embedded in sen-
tences during actual test presentation. These sentences
are listed in Appendix D.

Two test forms (A and B) were developed separately.
The Form A standardization sample was normed at the begin-
ning of the school year (September and October) using
kindergarten, first and second grades in each of 16 cities
thronghout the United States. Data for midyear (November—
February) norms were also obtained utilizing subjects from
five cities. A total of 9,737 children were tested at the
beginning and 2,668 during the middle of the school year.
The sample subjects for each grade level were divided
according to socioeconomic level as being "high," "middle,"
or "low."

Testing to determine the equivalence of Forms A
and B was conducted during December and January of the
school year. The subjects were subdivided according to
socioeconomic levels and a total of 1,192 were administered
both forms of the test. The resulting mean scores on
Forms A and B were 42.4 and 42.9, respectively. Standard

deviations of 7.3 (Form A) and 7.0 (Form B) were obtained.

An analysis of graphed representations of the frequency

24

distributions depicting the corresponding percentile
equivalents for each of the raw scores demonstrated that
at no point were scores on Form B more than 1.5 points
higher than the comparable scores on Form A. Thus, the
author concluded that the two forms would yield essentially
equivalent raw scores.

For the purposes of the present investigation,
Form B was selected for use in testing. This selection
was based upon the time of year during which data would be
gathered (February).

Form B of the test was divided into two booklets
(l and 2) of 25 items each. Three picture displays were
presented for each stimulus item, from which the child was
to select the correct representation and indicate his/her
choice by marking an "X.” The test items were presented

in order of increasing degree of difficulty.

Presentation Procedures

 

The 50 test items of the Boehm Test of Basic Con-
cepts (Form B) were presented to each child individually
in a single testing session by a trained Teacher of the
Hearing Impaired. The speech patterns of this single
examiner were unfamiliar to the children of both pro-
grams.

Each subject was seated in a school room while
directly facing the examiner, who was seated approxi-

mately two feet in front of each child. The individual

25

hearing aid(s) of each child was worn during the testing
situation.

The children from the Aural/Oral program received
the spoken stimulus only, while the children from the
Total Communication program received both the spoken and
signed representation of all directions and test items
presented. The signed representations utilized linguistic
formations in accordance with those portrayed in the Sign-
ing Exact English system. The actual sign symbols were
obtained from textbooks frequently used as resources in
Total Communication programs (Gustason et a1., 1975;
Babbini, 1976; Watson, 1973). If no formal sign could
be found in any text consulted, the word was finger-
spelled. The words fingerspelled in this study were
“hoops, (road) sign, ring, forward, skip, cones,
match."

In six instances ("ties, behind, below, least,
inside," and "store”), signs familiar to the children
of that particular program for the hearing impaired
were utilized. Four of these words were actual con-
cept test items, whereas the remaining two appeared
in carrier sentences. The sources for all signs used
are listed in Appendix E.

The experimenter was observed during all testing

situations by a trained Speech and Language Pathologist

26

in an attempt to monitor rate, volume, and articulation
patterns. All items for both groups of subjects were
presented by the experimenter using live voice at normal
conversation and effort level.

The directions from the test manual were simplified
for presentation to hearing impaired children (see Appen-
dix F). Each child demonstrated an understanding of the
three practice items of the test before actual testing
procedures were initiated. Once testing began, the intro-
ductory statement for each item was presented to each child
(Example: "Look at the pictures of the animals."). The
actual test sentence was then presented to each child twice
(”Mark the animal that is next to the rabbit.") If a sub-
ject requested additional presentations of a particular
sentence, the item was repeated. Each subject was allowed
as much time as was needed to complete all 50 items. The
longest individual testing session was 22 minutes.

Each subject responded to each test item by mark-
ing an "X" on the pictorial representation of his/her
intended response.

To ascertain test/retest reliability, the entire

test was administered to each child twice. To minimize

learning effects occurring between presentations, no more
than a single school day time interval between testings

was allowed. The children of the two programs participated

27

in the testing procedures during a lO-day period in the
winter of the same school year.
After each session, each child was given a bag of

M&M's as a reward for participating in the experiment.

Analysis

The data were hand scored by the experimenter.

The number of items correct and incorrect for each subject
was computed for both administrations of the test. This
resulted in a first test and second test score for each
subject in both the Aural/Oral and Total Communication
groups.

The data were placed into a two-way analysis of
variance with repeated measures design, and suitable
F-tests were performed (computerized). There were 15 sub-
jects per cell for a total of 30 subjects.

An item analysis of the performance of the Aural/
Oral and Total Communication subjects on each of the 50
test items was performed to determine which were:

1. Correct on both presentations of the test;

2. Correct on the first administration, incorrect

on the second;

3. Incorrect on the first administration, correct

on the second;

4. Incorrect on both test presentations.

28

The summary data depicting the results of this analysis
are listed in Appendices G, H, and I.

The Kuder-Richardson test for reliability of
measurement was performed separately on the test responses
of each group to determine if the test consistently sampled
the language performance of the children tested. A high
Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient would indicate
that the test items were homogenous and measured similar
patterns. A more detailed description of analysis proce-

dures may be found in the following section.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

The results of this study support the thesis that
significant differences do exist between children's test
performance on the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts as a com-
bined result of presentation mode (Aural/Oral or Total
Communication) and prior training. The overall results
demonstrate that this particular test is reliable across
both groups of subjects. However, examination of the data
reveals that reliability is higher for Aural/Oral popula-
tions than for subjects utilizing the addition of Sign
language and fingerspelling. Reliability for this latter
group utilizing a Total Communication approach is poorer
as a result of a ceiling effect which occurs with regard
to a higher number of items correct.

Age is not a significant factor, regardless of the
group of students being investigated. The following dis-
cussion of the results illustrates these facts more spe-
cifically.

The mean scores for the two group factors under
consideration by first and second test administration are

presented in Table 1. Table 2 depicts the results of a

29

30

 

SE. 88. v a 928 3.2 $.06 on 858.8
8.2 3.8 3.2. 2 HS:H§<
was. swuwm 8.3. 2 :9 SSHSES Haas

8528 8.0.8. 28% a REE

 

68m. 88. v a SEN 8.2 8.8 om 8598
8d 912 Raw. 2 HS:§<
ohm 918 SE 2 SEEMS H38.

 

:3 985223 H8. 888

Son. 68. v a 8.3 w; 3:8 on 85980
3.x :1: 5mm 2 RS\RS<
m3. 313 $8 2 8382398 389

 

=3 REMEMBER Moe REE

 

condovm mocmofimwcwfim cofipmfl>oa wouoom
«pm Ho Ho>mq Chapcspm mo mucus

ARMS z

.AMpasmon pmou cosmoeoo paw .Ocooom
.uhhflmv :OflpmupmHGHEUd pMOp paw ACOHPMOHcSEEOU fiance and Hmuo\adn=¢v mosouw
2909 Ho poouaoo homoom cams map so ooEHOHAOQ Mammamcd as mo manna >pm8€smln.a wands

31

 

 

.. .. mm.v mm b®.®mH pouno MHOOnoom swapfla
mz ms.H so.m H so.m Md30pm x mflaflae
mz mmo. hm.o H hm.o madame
.. .. .. om oo.mmH whommnsm chap“;
.. .. mm.mm mm no.5wnm MOHAO muomnnom cooapmm

Hooo. v d m>.mm Sm.sesm H sm.svsm Manchu
.. .. .. mm mm.vmmm MpOOnosm coozwom
.. .. .. mm mm.mmvm fiance

mooMOHchwfim
Ho Hm>mq m m: MU mm condom

 

.Aocooom was phyfiwv mcofipmgpmfiofieos

amp» cpon cod AooHpMOHCBEEOU Hapoe com ngo\amns<v MQSOHM apoo Ho monoom
pooynoo Mo gonad: can so noeMOHMOQ woodfiam> mo wfimzamom as mo macaw >hmEEdmll.m OHQMB

32

two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures
(Winer, 1962). Appendices J and K list the raw score data

for each subject by group and test presentation.

Main Effect of Group

 

Table 1 reveals that the difference between groups
(Aural/Oral versus Total Communication) is significant at
the p < .0001 level. Thus, the overall means of 47.13
and 74.20 for the two groups, Aural/Oral and Total Commu-
nication. respectively, when averaged over both first and
second test presentations, do differ significantly. The
effects of presentation method were extremely powerful.
The Eta Squared for the difference between the two groups
was 0.5150, indicating that 50 percent of the variation in
language performance skills (as measured by this test)
could be accounted for by group membership.

The results Of a two-way analysis of variance with
repeated measures design are presented in Table 2. These
findings would suggest that when degree of loss, compound-
ing handicapping conditions, and age of onset are con-
sidered in subject selection, hearing impaired children
from Aural/Oral versus Total Communication programs
would not perform equally on this particular test of
receptive language ability. Rather, the children of the
Aural/Oral group perform markedly and significantly below

those of the group utilizing a Total Communication approach.

33

The tabled values of correct scores for each subject by

group are listed in Appendix L.

Effect of Age
A nonsignificant correlation was found between

age of the subjects and test performance. This was true

of subjects across both groups combined (r = .065), as
well as within groups (Aural/Oral: r = .020; Total Com-
munication: r = .150). Thus, regardless of the group

investigated, test performance on the Boehm Test of Basic
Concepts was not significantly correlated with age of

subjects.

Test Reliability

 

The Kuder-Richardson test for reliability of
measurement was performed on the test responses of both
groups. This statistic measured the internal consistency
of the test items and the extent to which they measured
similar patterns. Table 3 depicts the results of this
analysis by group (Aural/Oral and Total Communication).
As can be seen, a highly significant (p < .0001) correla-
tion exists for test-retest (first and second test)
reliability over the two groups.

The Fisher Z test for determining the differences
between two independent correlations was performed. The

resulting difference in Z value of .54 between the

34

correlations for the Aural/Oral and Total Communication

groups was not found to be significant at a p < .05 level.

Table 3.--Summary table of test—retest reliability by group
(Aural/Oral and Total Communication).

 

 

. Level of

Group N Correlation (R) Significance
Total Communication 15 0.85 p < .0001
Aural/Oral 15 0.93 p < .0001
Combined 30 0.96 p < .0001

 

Table 4 illustrates that the obtained reliability
coefficients were higher for the Aural/Oral group on both
first and second test administrations than for the Total
Communication group. This may be due to a ceiling effect
which occurs for the Total Communication population on both

first and second test administrations.

Table 4.--Summary data depicting the results of the Kuder-
Richardson test of reliability by group (Aural/
Oral and Total Communication) and test adminis-
tration (first and second).

 

 

KR 20 KR 20
First Test Second Test
Administration Administration
Total Communication 0.68 0.53
Aural/Oral 0.85 0.89

Combined 0.90 0.92

 

35

Test items were identified for both groups which
had zero or highly limited variance. These are listed in
Appendix M. As can be seen, a large number of items had
zero variance for the group of subjects using Total Com-
munication, as they were correctly identified during test-
ings by these children.

The internal consistency between subjects was
higher for the Aural/Oral group due to the variation of
subjects' scores evidenced. Thus, the overall test relia-
bility of the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts was high. Sev-
eral of the test items appear to be too simple for subjects
of this age range using the Total Communication approach,
and are limited in their discriminating abilities. They
may, however, be appropriate items for inclusion for meet-
ing a basic purpose of the test, which is to determine if

these concepts are understood by individual students.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION

Group Differences in Test Performance

As has been demonstrated, a significant difference
exists between the mean test scores of the groups of chil-
dren using an Aural/Oral versus a Total Communication
approach. This difference is apparent for both first and
second test administrations. The range of scores is
noticeably greater for the Aural/Oral group (16 to 41 for
the first test and 13 to 46 for the second test) than for
the Total Communication group (27 to 44 for the first test
and 31 to 43 for the second test). As can be seen, no
subject using a Total Communication approach performed as
poorly as did the lowest-scoring Aural/Oral subjects.

One difference between subjects in the compo-
sition of the two groups was that of degree of hearing
loss. Four of the 15 subjects in the Aural/Oral group
demonstrated severe as opposed to profound levels of hear-
ing impairments. However, only a single subject in the
Total Communication group demonstrated such relatively
high hearing ability. There are insufficient data in the

present investigation to allow for absolute comparative

36

37

statements relative to subject performance as related

to degree of hearing loss (severe versus profound). How-
ever, it is interesting to note that despite the Aural/
Oral group's possible advantage due to increased hearing
acuity, the subjects nevertheless performed signifi-
cantly poorer than did those of the Total Communication
group.

A Total Communication presentation is often
described as being highly ideographic in nature, with sign
symbols visibly illustrating the intended word (Davis,
1977). Thus, it may be argued that many of the stimulus
sentences were so graphically portrayed for the Total
Communication subjects that correct responses were arrived
at without actual prior knowledge of the word(s) involved.

An examination of the actual concepts tested
reveals that, in many instances, such a claim may be accu-
rate. The sign symbols for concepts such as "over, around,
behind, below, zero, and above" are indeed graphic in
nature. However, this is not true for the more obscure
sign representations for concepts such as "least, always,
some, not many, most, beginning" or fingerspelled items
such as "forward." Further, it should be stressed that the
50 concepts were embedded in sentence combinations of up
to 22 words in length, during test presentations. It is
questionable whether subjects of this age could correctly

select the single concept sign to successfully respond to

38

an item without some degree of comprehension of the lan-
guage material being presented. This may be illustrated
through the examination of such test items as:

#9. Look at the clothes hanging on the line. Mark
the dress that is farthest from the socks.

#27. Look at the box of pencils and the groups of
pencils. Mark the group that has as many
pencils as the box.

#42. Look at the groups of circles and dots. Mark
the group that has a dot in every circle.

Finally, it should be reiterated that the actual
purpose of Total Communication is to present all available
forms of input to maximize comprehension. An originating
premise purports that an Aural/Oral presentation is too
Often insufficient in conveying information to the hearing
impaired individual. The addition of graphic cues where
possible, to enhance communication abilities, is an
intended aspect of Total Communication.

The results of this investigation would not allow
for the conclusive statement that children trained utiliz-
ing a Total Communication approach possess significantly
better overall receptive language skills than do their
Aural/Oral counterparts. Only those comments regarding
performance as measured by this single test may be made
with assurance. Therefore, it may be concluded that chil-
dren trained to use a Total Communication approach, receiv-
ing the stimulus items of the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts

via that same presentation mode, perform significantly

39

better on this test than do children of a similar age range
utilizing an Aural/Oral approach. Documentation of this
finding using other groups of children and measures of

assessment could allow for a more conclusive statement to

be made.

Comparison of Test Performance With That
of Hard-Of—Hearing Subjects

Davis (1974) provides data depicting the performance
of 24 hard-of-hearing children, ranging in age from 6 years
to 8 years, 11 months, on the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts.
Although these subjects were younger as a group than those
included in the present investigation, some interesting
comparative observations may be made.

The subjects of the Davis study demonstrated mild
or moderate levels of hearing loss and the majority were
integrated into classrooms for the normally hearing for at
least one-half of the school day. Comparisons of the per-
centile scores students obtained on the Boehm Test of
Basic Concepts were compared to those of middle socio-
economic level subjects demonstrating normal levels
of hearing acuity. Her results pertaining to hearing
impaired subjects revealed that:

Only 22 percent of the seven and eight year olds
scored at or above the 40th and 60th percentile
levels on the test. Fifty percent of the six year
olds scored at or below the 10th percentile, while
67% of the seven year olds and 83% of the eight year

olds scored below that level. Only two hearing
impaired children scored above the 80th percentile;

40

each of them exhibited a high frequency hearing loss
characterized by normal hearing through 500 Hz. Most
discouraging of all, two-thirds of the seven and
eight year old hearing impaired children scored at
the 1st percentile in knowledge of these concepts

(p. 346).

The performance of many of the severely and pro-
foundly hearing impaired children of the present investi-
gation was very similar to the results reported by Davis
for younger hard-of-hearing subjects using an Aural/Oral
approach. When the scores of the first and second tests
were combined, 12 of the 15 subjects using an Aural/Oral
approach scored at the first percentile level for normal
hearing first graders. Comparison of performance with that
of normal hearing second graders shows that 13 of the Aural/
Oral group scored at the first percentile. (See Appendix J.)

Using an average of the first and second test
scores, only one of the subjects utilizing a Total Communi-
cation approach scored at the first percentile level when
compared to the normed first grade data. A total of 9 of
the 15 subjects scored at the first percentile level when
compared to existing norms for normal hearing second
graders. (See Appendix K.)

It would appear, then, that the severely and pro-
foundly hearing impaired subjects of the present investi-
gation performed similarly to those younger hard-of—hearing

subjects reported on by Davis. This is especially true of

those children using an Aural/Oral approach. Further

41

research is needed to investigate more definitively the
performance of children who vary in level of hearing loss,

age, and communication approach utilized.

Relationship onge and Subject Performance

An examination of the percentile rankings of raw
scores of the hard-of—hearing subjects studied by Davis
(1974) revealed that age of subjects was not a significant
factor when correlated with test performance. This find-
ing was also confirmed in the present investigation. The
total age range of these present subjects studied was
6 years, 11 months to 13 years, 7 months. This large span,
however, did not result in significant correlations between
age and test performance for either the Aural/Oral or Total
Communication group.

The severely depressed language abilities of hear—
ing impaired children have been frequently documented in
the literature (McClure, 1966; Simms & Yater, 1974;
Wrightsone et a1., 1963). The results of the present inves-
tigation would support Davis' premise of a severe lack
of progress in the development of these language concepts
as hearing impaired children advance in age. Such a find-
ing may have significant implications as related to recom-
mendations for programming designed to place emphasis upon
specific conceptual development for the child demonstrating

a need in this area.

42

Types of Subject Errors

The results of an item analysis of the errors made
by subjects of the Aural/Oral and Total Communication
groups are listed in Appendices G, H, and I. Appendix N
illustrates those items by group which were in error one-
half of the time or more, and identifies the classifica—
tion type (Space, Quantity, Time, Miscellaneous) for each
of these concepts.

A total of 29 of the 50 concepts were in error
15 times or more during both test presentations combined,
for the children of the Aural/Oral group. As can be seen,
the errors made by children of the Aural/Oral group are
numerous, and appear to be somewhat random in nature. No
single classification group appears to present a dispro-
portionate amount of difficulty for these subjects.
Rather, the Aural/Oral children appear to have problems
related to all conceptual classifications tested.

It is interesting to note that several of these
concepts (“few, over, below, left, above, third") are
relatively "visible" in terms of speech production. These
are also items which are typically included in language
curriculum programs used with hearing impaired students.
The results of this study would lend support to previously
made statements relative to the limitations of Aural/Oral
interpretive abilities of children when deciphering con-

cepts presented in sentential forms.

43

A total of 8 of the 50 concepts were in error
15 times or more during both test presentations combined,
for the children of the Total Communication group. All
eight of these concepts ("right, as many, equal, begin-
ning, never, alike, match, skip") were also among those
most frequently missed by the Aural/Oral subjects.
Further, these concepts were either fingerspelled, or were
ones for which the signed representation was minimally
graphic in nature. Thus, it would appear that these items
are ones which either are rarely presented to hearing
impaired children, or, if presented, are not reiterated
sufficiently to insure mastery of these concepts. These
high-frequency errors made by the subjects of both groups
were distributed through all four of the conceptual cate—
gories. However, the subjects of the Total Communication
group appear to perform better than their Aural/Oral coun-
terparts in the identification of concepts related to
”space" (1 error versus 13 errors, respectively) and

"quantity" (2 errors versus 10 errors, respectively).

Test Reliability
Figures related to test/retest reliability have
been presented in Table 3. A highly significant (p < .0001)
correlation was found to exist for this factor. For both
the Aural/Oral and Total Communication groups, scores
Obtained by each subject on the first and second tests

were either identical or very similar. Thus, it would

44

appear that the score obtained from a single administra-
tion of the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts would serve as
a reliable estimate for additional testing presentations.

The reliability of this test for each of the two
groups of subjects was investigated. The Boehm Test of
Basic Concepts proved to be an internally reliable instru-
ment for use with subjects of the Aural/Oral group. This
was largely due to the wide variability of subjects' per-
formance on test responses. That is, there were suffi-
cient differences among subjects' scores hoallow'individual
test items to act as discriminating determiners of overall
scores.

This high degree of internal reliability was not
found for the Total Communication presentations. Generally,
these subjects tended to achieve similar scores and demon-
strated a reduced range of score variability. A ceiling
effect was evidenced, and the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts
was found to be limited in serving as a sufficiently
powerful tool for discerning differences in subject per-
formance for this group. The test could, however, be use-
ful in the assessment of an individual child's knowledge
of particular concepts or conceptual groups.

Implications Related to the Integration
of Hearing Impaired Children
Public Law 94—142 mandates that handicapped chil-

dren must be educated in the least restrictive environment

45

which is deemed appropriate to meet individual needs. As

a result, numerous hearing impaired children are being
considered for placement in general education classrooms
for varying portions of the school day. Karchmer and
Trybus (1977) report that, at the time of investigation,

19 percent of hearing impaired students were being served
in integrated programs consisting of part-time classes,
resource rooms, or itinerant services. Such forms of inte-
gration may stress social, academic, or a combination of
these areas of need for each child.

Decisions as to the appropriateness of such place-
ments continue to be predicated primarily upon staff and
parental input, as well as academic performance in selected
subjects. The need exists, both as a result of legal man-
dates as well as concern for successful experiences for
children, to identify instruments which may be reliably
used to measure the language performances of these chil-
dren. The documentation obtained could then be utilized,
in combination with staff input and academic performance,
to make more appropriate recommendations for programming.

The results of this study would suggest that ele-
mentary level hearing impaired children of both groups,
regardless of chronological age, demonstrate severe limi-
tations in their receptive language abilities. The Boehm
Test of Basic Concepts measures a very limited sampling

of the multitude of concepts which the hearing impaired

46

child may be expected to encounter in the very early ele-
mentary grades. If, however, it is indeed indicative of
the broader range of language concepts necessary for aca-
demic and social success, then all of the hearing impaired
students tested demonstrate severe limitations and are
highly disadvantaged.

It would appear that the Boehm Test of Basic Con-
cepts is an instrument which could be used with hearing
impaired children in an attempt to more objectively assess
the appropriateness of placement in a regular education
classroom. Examiners should realize that test performance
represents behavior which may be expected to occur under
more ideal conditions than are encountered in an on-going
classroom experience. However, when used as an additive
source of input to existing procedures, the Boehm Test of
Basic Concepts could serve to enhance the validity of judg-
ments made relative to appropriate child placement and pro-

gramming.

Implications for Future Research
The present investigation has demonstrated that
the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts is an instrument which
may be used with hearing impaired students in an attempt
to more objectively assess the appropriateness of recom-
mendations for placement into general education classrooms.

The overall performance of the subjects investigated was

47

found to be low when compared to normal-hearing children
of younger ages. Further research is needed to deter-
mine the percentile or criteria of performance on this
assessment instrument necessary for successful academic
performance in regular educational placements. Research
designed to correlate test scores with an "integration
adequacy index" could result in a predictive instrument
which would strengthen present subjective judgments of
recommendations for student placement and programming.

An obvious area requiring further research is that
with regard to the nature of the test used in this study.
A single test, designed to assess receptive language per-
formance through a representative sampling of basic con-
cepts, was employed. While data-based information was
obtained, the need exists to expand such investigations
to other standardized instruments for use with hearing
impaired children. Further, the need continues to exist
for the identification of other instruments which assess
additional areas of language performance which have been
demonstrated as reliable for use with children who use
Total Communication.

The present investigation utilized a ”Signing
Exact English" manual portrayal of stimulus items pre-
sented. Additional research is needed to determine

whether the findings of this study, with regard to subject

48

performance, would be similar for students utilizing other
sign systems.

Another area for future research deals with pos—
sible implications of an examiner bias effect. The indi-
vidual selected to present the test items to all of the
subjects was employed by, and favored, a Total Communica-
tion program. Every testing session was observed by the
experimenter in an effort to monitor integrity of presen—
tation mode. It may be argued that this bias contributed
to the depressed scores of the children in the Aural/Oral
group. However, it should also be noted that a true form
of Total Communication would have allowed for the use of
facial and body cues during presentations, which was not
allowed in the present investigation. Additional research
could be conducted using an examiner who favors an Aural/
Oral approach and could allow for the total spectrum of
input forms for children.

Although the range of ages for subjects studied
was relatively large, limited representation of subjects
at any specific age category was present. Future research
should increase the number of subjects by age to obtain
more conclusive results. Such investigation could also be
expanded to include comprehensive information related to
varying degrees of hearing loss, ranging from mild to pro-

found levels of hearing impairment.

49

Further research is also needed to address the
question of how hearing impaired students of Aural/Oral
and Total Communication programs perform on measures of
receptive language when the variable of presentation fre-
quency is controlled. That is, a research study should be
designed to determine the relative efficiency and effec-
tiveness of learning by students using either communication
method, while controlling for exposure to concept presen-
tation. In the present investigation, this factor was
an unknown variable. It was impossible to determine con-
clusively why the Total Communication subjects performed
better than their Aural/Oral counterparts. The question
must be raised as to the degree of exposure to the various
concepts presented children of each program had experienced.
A study designed to match the number of exposures for chil—
dren of both groups could better ascertain the effective-
ness of conceptual learning by children as related to
presentation method.

Finally, the present study investigated the per-
formance of subjects from public-school settings for whom
the confounding variable of additional handicapping condi—
tion(s) was controlled. Numerous students are presently
enrolled in other types of programs for the hearing
impaired, and/or exhibit multiple handicaps (Jensema &
Trybus, 1975). This latter faCtor increases the diffi-

culty of appropriate assessment of performance. However,

50

the need most definitely exists to identify instruments
which may be reliably used with this population as well.
Jensema and Trybus (1978) state that too often
educators favor a "quick jump to the bottom line” approach
to obtain information related to highly complex issues.
They stress that the factors related to the communication
patterns and aChievement levels of hearing impaired stu-
dents cannot be properly understood or evaluated, except
in their complexity. The critical need for continued
experimental examination, to determine appropriate assess-
ment procedures, is an absolute necessity for meeting the
goal of providing more effective programming for hearing

impaired individuals.

APPENDICES

51

APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS USING AN

AURAL/ORAL APPROACH

52

53

 

 

 

.Omooamon o: u mz*
moa mm om was: wINH ma
mm om ow was: NINH «a
moH 00H 05 oHanm Hum ma
mm cm on cam: mum NH
moa moa OOH mam: mlma Ha
mz ooH ow wads mum 0H
om on om was: OIHH m
mz mz mz was: win w
moH om om mamaom NIoH b
ow ow mu CHEEom OHIHH m
OHH mod no OHdEom HImH m
00H moH mm mamsom HImH v
mHH moH mm mad: Halo m
moH moH om was: wnu N

Aux oomav
*mz mod om bassom «Ina H
mm ooom N: oooH um oom xom mango: was noosoz “omnoom

Amsv msHOEMMEse mcfihamm

made» ow mw<

 

mo¢ommm< A<mO\A¢mD< z< UZHmD mBUmmem m0 ¢B¢Q M>HBmHmUmmm

< xHszmm¢

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS USING A

TOTAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

54

55

 

 

.omcoomom on n mz*
mz ooH mm OHM: NIOH mH
mz oHH mm OHM: HIoH wH
moH mm ow OHME Hum mH
mz moH om OHMS mum NH
mz ooH mm mHmz HHIm HH
ooH mm om OHmEom mum oH
ow mm ow OHMEOM OINH m
mz moH mm OHMEOM bImH m
mz mz oHH OHmEmm mum m
oHH oHH om mHmEOm OHINH m
mz OHH ooH OHMEOm NINH m
mz mz om oHdEom MINH v
mz om Ob OHMEOm onoH m
oHH moH mm OHMEOm @10H m
mcH *mz OHH OHmsom HIHH H

um ooom um oooH Mm oom xmm mspaos use “@2932 pommnsm

 

Amuv mcHonmmhse maHHmom

mummy :H ow¢

 

mo<ommm< ZOHB<UHZDSSOO A¢BOB < OZHmD mfiumnmam m0 <B¢Q m>HBmHmDme

m NHDzmmm¢

APPENDIX C

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTS TO BE TESTED USING

THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

56

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTS TO BE TESTED USING
THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

APPENDIX C

 

Concept

Concept Category

 

Space

Quantity

Time

Misc.

 

UILBOONH

Top
Through
Away from
Next to
Inside

NXXNX

 

Some, not many
Middle

Few

Farthest
Around

N

 

Over
Widest
Most
Between
Whole

 

Nearest
Second
Corner
Several
Behind

 

Row
Different
After
Almost
Half

 

Center

As many
Side
Beginning
Other

*x

 

57

58

 

Concept Category

 

 

 

 

 

Concept
Space Quantity Time Misc.

31 Alike x
32 Not first or last * x *
33 Never x
34 Below x
35 Matches X
36 Always x
37 Medium-sized x
38 Right x
39 Forward x
40 Zero x
41 Above x
42 Every x
43 Separated x *
44 Left x
45 Pair x
46 Skip x
47 Equal x
48 In order x
49 Third * x *
50 Least X

 

X's indicate the context category of each concept
as it is tested.

Asterisks indicate additional contexts in which the
concepts may be employed. For example, the concept of
beginning (item 29) is used in the context of time on the
BTBC, but it may also be used to express relationships
involving space.

 

APPENDIX D

DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS FOR EACH ITEM OF

FORM B OF THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

59

10.

11.

APPENDIX D

DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS FOR EACH ITEM OF
FORM B OF THE BOEHM TEST OF BASIC CONCEPTS

Look at the flags on the poles. Mark the pole with
the flag at the top. . . . Mark the pole with the flag
at the top.

Look at the dogs and the hoops. Mark the dog that is
going through the hoop. . . . Mark the dog that is

going through the hoop.

Look at the baby and the blocks. Mark the block that
is away from the baby. . . . Mark the block that is
away from the baby.

 

 

Look at the animals. Mark the animal that is next to
the rabbit. . . . Mark the animal that is next to the
rabbit.

Look at the boxes and balls. Mark the box with the
balls inside it. . . . Mark the box with the balls

inside it.

Look at the bowls of flowers. Mark the bowl that has
some but not magy flowers. . . . Mark the bowl that
has some but not many flowers.

 

 

Look at the children. Mark the child who is in the
middle. . . . Mark the child who is in the middle.

Look at the pictures of boxes. Mark the picture that
has a few boxes. . . . Mark the picture that has a
few boxes.

Look at the clothes hanging on the line. Mark the
dress that is farthest from the socks. . . . Mark the
dress that is farthest from the socks.

Look at the flowers and strings. Mark the flower that
has a string around it. . . . Mark the flower that has
a string around it.

Look at the children and the rope. Mark the child who

is over the rope. . . . Mark the child who is over the
rope.

6O

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

61

Look at the ties. Mark the tie that is widest.
Mark the tie that is widest.

Look at the boxes of buttons. Mark the box that has
the most buttons. . . . Mark the box that has the
most buttons.

 

Look at the pictures of toys. Mark the picture that
has a bear between two blocks. . . . Mark the picture
that has a bear between two blocks.

Look at the apples. Mark the apple that is whole.
Mark the apple that is whole.

Look at the dogs and the bone. Mark the dog that is
nearest the bone. . . . Mark the dog that is nearest
the bone.

Look at the line of trucks and the sign. Mark the
second truck from the sign. . . . Mark the second
truck from the sign.

Look at the buildings. Mark the building that is at
a corner of the street. . . . Mark the building that
is at a corner of the street.

Look at the groups of knives, forks, and spoons. Mark
the group that has several spoons. . . . Mark the group
that has several spoons.

Look at the boys and the wagon. Mark the boy who is
behind the wagon. . . . Mark the boy who is behind
the wagon.

Look at the pictures of bottles. Mark the picture
where all the bottles are in a row. . . . Mark the
picture where all the bottles are in a row.

Look at the piles of books. Mark the pile that is
different from the others. . . . Mark the pile that
is different from the others.

 

 

Look at the pictures of a piece of wood. Mark the
picture that shows how the wood looked after it was
cut. . . . Mark the picture that shows how the wood
looked after it was cut.

Look at the baskets of fruit. Mark the basket that
is almost full. . . . Mark the basket that is almost
full.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

62

Look at the boxes. Mark the box that is half black.
Mark the box that is half black.

Look at the ring and the marbles. Mark the marble
that is at the center of the ring. . . . Mark the
marble that is at the center of the ring.

Look at the box of pencils and the groups of pencils.
Mark the group that has as many pencils as the box.

Mark the group that has as many pencils as the
box.

Look at the car and the boys. Mark the boy at the

side of the car. . . . Mark the boy at the side of

the car.

Look at the boys on the stairs. Mark the boy who is
beginning to climb the stairs. . . . Mark the boy who

 

is beginning to climb the stairs.

Look at the toys. One is a doll and one is a truck.
Mark the other toy. . . . Mark the other toy.

Look at the socks. Mark the socks that are alike.
Mark the socks that are alike.

Look at the ducks in the water. Mark the duck that
is not the first or the last. . . . Mark the duck that
is not the first or the last.

Look at the lamp, the wristwatch, and the shoe. Mark
the thing that a child should never wear. . . . Mark
the thing that a child should never wear.

Look at the bench and the birds. Mark the bird that
is below the bench. . . . Mark the bird that is below
the bench.

Look at the shirts and pants. Mark the pants that
match one of the shirts. . . . Mark the pants that

 

match one of the shirts.

Look at the box, the wheel, and the feather. Mark
the thing a bicycle always has. . . . Mark the thing
a bicycle always has.

Look at the butterflies. Mark the butterfly that is
medium sized. . . . Mark the butterfly that is medium

sized.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

63

Look at the apples on the shelf. Mark the apple at
the right end of the shelf. . . . Mark the apple at
the right end of the shelf.

Look at the little chicks. Mark the chick that is
bending forward. . . . Mark the chick that is bending
forward.

Look at the rabbits and carrots. Mark the rabbit that
has zero carrots. . . . Mark the rabbit that has zero
carrots.

Look at the windows of the house. Mark the window
that is above the door. . . . Mark the window that
is above the door.

Look at the groups of circles and dots. Mark the
group that has a dot in every circle. . . . Mark the
group that has a dot in every circle.

Look at the pictures of boxes. Mark the picture where
the boxes are separated. . . . Mark the picture where
the boxes are separated.

 

 

Look at the trees. Mark the tree on the left.
Mark the tree on the left.

Look at the pictures of dolls. Mark the picture that
shows a pair of dolls. . . . Mark the picture that
shows a pair of dolls.

Look at the circles. One circle has an X in it. Skip
a circle and make another X. . . . Skip a circle and
make another X.

Look at the groups of stars. Mark the groups that
have equal numbers of stars. . . . Mark the groups
that have equal numbers of stars.

Look at the pictures of boxes. Mark the picture where
the boxes are in order from small to large. . . . Mark
the picture where the boxes are in order from small to
large.

Look at the store and the houses. Mark the third house
from the store. . . . Mark the third house from the
store.

Look at the pictures of ice cream cones. Mark the
picture that has the least cones. . . . Mark the pic-
ture that has the least cones.

APPENDIX E

SOURCE/METHOD OF MANUAL PRESENTATION FOR THOSE

ITEMS NOT FOUND IN SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH

 

64

APPENDIX E

SOURCE/METHOD OF MANUAL PRESENTATION FOR THOSE
ITEMS NOT FOUND IN SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH
1975)

Item

Hoops
(Street) Sign
(Circular) Ring
Forward

Skip

(Ice Cream) Cones
Always

Not

Alike
Different
Around

Never

Match

Few

Order

Row

(Neck) Ties
Store

Behind

Below

Least

Inside

 

*"Program Signs” were employed when no existing
formal sign could be located which conveyed the approp-

 

(Gustason et al.,

Source/Method of Presentation

riate meaning of the intended item.
which the children of this particular program for the

hearing impaired utilized to illustrate a particular word.

65

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item

(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Babbini,
(Watson,
(Watson,
*Program
*Program
*Program
*Program
*Program
*Program

fingerspelled

fingerspelled

fingerspelled

fingerspelled

fingerspelled

fingerspelled
1976)
1976)
1976)
1976)
1976)
1976)
1976)
1976)

1973)

1973)

Sign

Sign

Sign

Sign

Sign

Sign

These were signs

APPENDIX F

INTRODUCTORY DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO ALL SUBJECTS

66

APPENDIX F

INTRODUCTORY DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO ALL SUBJECTS

(Modified from those prescribed hatest manual
of the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts)

I have given you a book with some pictures in it. Watch,
and listen, and do what I say.

You are going to look at pictures and mark "X's" on them.
This is how you make an "X” (experimenter demonstrates).

Now look at the shoe, the hat, and the sock. Mark an "X"

on the hat. . . . Mark an "X" on the hat.

Now look at the things to ride in. Mark an "X” on the
boat. . . . Mark an "X" on the boat.

Look at the fruit. Mark the banana. . . . Mark the banana.
Very good.

If you make a mistake or want a different answer, that is
OK. Make a circle around the wrong picture like this
(experimenter demonstrates). Then make the new "X.”

67

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPES OF RESPONSES IN THE

GROUP USING AN AURAL/ORAL APPROACH

68

69

 

m N H NH O u ON

O N O OH O O ON

O m N OH b O ON

H O H OH HH O NN

O N O O O O HN

N H H NH O O ON

O O m b m O OH

O m N OH > O OH

O H O OH > O NH

O H O HH O O OH

O N N HH O O OH

O N O O O O OH

O H O OH > O OH

O H m HH v 5 NH

O O O NH O O HH

m H N NH HH H OH

O N H NH O O O

O O H HH O O O

O O O O O O b

v H m HH v b O

N H H OH HH N O

N N O NH O O O

O O O O O O m

m N H NH O m N

O O v HH OH H H
mmmaoammm HOOP Ocoomm pmmg.Ocoomm OOOOOQOON mcoHpmHsOmmhm_ MOOHpapcmmmhm Hmossz
296$:ch no HOMES co 98.283 HERMES ME. 58 H8. 58 .53
mo MOQEDZ IIHmmB pthm Ilpmme pmnHm Ho HOQEOZ so powhhoo so pomhhoocH pmmh

Happh so pomahoqu no pompuoo Hdpoe

 

mo<omma¢ A<m0\q<m3¢ z< oszD ADOMO Mme ZH mmmzommmm m0 mmmwe DZHBUHQMQ <B<Q >m¢223m
o NHDzmmm¢

 

 

7O

 

OOH OO NOH OOO OON OON HOHDB
O O O NH 5 O OO
O O N OH O O OO
O O N O O O OO
o O o OH OH O NO
N O N OH O O OO
O O o NH H HH OO
O v W b N O OO
O O O b O N OO
O N O OH O O NO
v H O HH v O HO
N o N OH NH H CO
v H O HH 5 O OO
O N H NH N OH OO
N H H OH O O OO
O N O OH O O OO
H O H OH O HH OO
O O O NH O O HO
O N N HH O O OO
O O N O O O NO
0 O o OH OH O HO
O H O HH O O CO
O O H HH O O ON
O O N CH O O ON
H H O OH O HH 5N
v H O HH v 5 ON

mmmoommmm MOB OOOOOO HOB Ocoomm mmmsonmwm

pampmHmcoocH no #09300 no #098005 HOEHOOOO MOMMWMHMMMOOHAH mcmwwwpmwwmhm Ame—MHZ
Ho M352 {Moe HOE I58. ORE H0 8852 no 6850 so 59:85 Mme

H.309 no #09385 no ”58.80 H.309

 

APPENDIX H

SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPE OF RESPONSES IN THE

GROUP USING A TOTAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

71

72

 

o o o OH O O ON
m o m H m m mm
O N H NH O O NN
o o 0 OH OH o H
O N N HH OH H ON
N H H OH O O OH
0 o o OH OH H OH
H O H OH OH O OH
m m o m H 0H m H
o o O OH OH O OH
H o H OH OH O OH
o o O OH OH H NH
O O o OH OH H HH
H H o E H o oH
O o O NH O O O
H H O OH OH H O
H H o OH NH N b
N N O OH O O O
o o o OH OH o O
o o O OH O O O
O O O OH OH N O
o o o OH OH o H
mmmcogwmm HOB HEOOOO HOB OHHOOOO mmmcommmm mqu HHOOOHAH meH HHGOOOHAH .8852
HOOHMHOHHOOHHH so 8.8.800 :0 HOOHHOOOH pampmHmeO “WOO. apom ”ROB apom 83H ,
Ho .5952 Ilpmme awthH {MOB HOHHEH Ho .8852 no 909300 so HOOHHOOHHH HOB
H.309 no HOOHHOOOH no HOOHHOO H.309

 

OUOOOQQO ZOHBOUHZDESOO HOBOB
O OZHOD QDOOO MOB zH OOOZOQOWO m0 mmwe OZHBDHQMQ <B<Q WOOEEDO

m xHszmm<

 

 

 

OO NO OO OOO ONO OO proe

H H O OH HH O OO

O o O NH 2 O O

N. m N m N. H m¢

O O O OH. H OH NO

O O O OH N OH OO

O H N NH O O OO

O H N NH O O OO

O O O OH OH H OO

H H O OH OH O NO

O O O OH OH O HO

O O O OH OH H OO

O O H HH O O OO

H H O OH b 5 OO

O O O HH O O OO

O O O OH OH O OO

OH O OH N N O OO

O O O OH OH H OO

O O O OH b O OO

O O O OH OH H NO

O O H HH O O HO

N N O OH NH H OO

O N H NH O O ON

O O H HH O N ON

N N O OH N HH 5N

O N H NH O O ON

H H O OH OH O ON
mmmconmmm HOOP OOOOOO pmme OOOOOO mwmcoawmm mcoHpOpcmmem maoapmpcmmmpm” 902852
2839.85 co 8&8 no 80285 E65380 ME. 58 OOH. fiom 5:
mo HOQEOZ Ilpmme HOHHH Inpwme pmuHm Ho HOQESZ no HOOHHOO so HOOHHOOOH pmme

Hdpoe so HOOHHOOGH so HOOHHOO HOHOE

 

APPENDIX I

SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING TYPES OF RESPONSES FOR EACH
ITEM (FIRST AND SECOND TESTS) OVER BOTH GROUPS

(AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL COMMUNICATION) COMBINED

74

75

 

m N m ON OH HH ON
m N m NN NH N ON
O N N NN ON N NN
N m m ON OH O HN
N m m ON OH OH ON
OH O O ON NH O NH
O m N ON HN O NH
5 N O ON ON O NH
O H O ON NN O NH
N O N ON OH HH OH
N N O ON HN O OH
m H m ON HN O NH
O H m ®N wH w NH
O O m ON ON 5 HH
O N N 0N ON H OH
N N O ON OH OH N
O O H ON NH N w
b O m NN NH 5 b
O O O ON NH NH O
N H H NN NN N m
N N 0 ON OH OH O
Q N 0 ON NH N N
O N N NN MN m N
O O O ®N ON H H

mquoammm HOB HEOOOO HOB Ocoomm momnawmm mHHoH EHOOOOHAH mcoH HEOOOHAH .8852

HOHMHOBOOOH so HOOHHOO no #093003 383960 MOB nuom “OOH. fiom 83H

Ho $952 leoe MAE {Mme ORE Ho $852 so 88MB 5 H8283 Hoe
H.309 so HOOPHOOHHH co HOOHHOO H.309

 

QHZHOEOU HZOHB<UHZDEEOU HOBOB QZO HOOO\H<OD<V OQDOOO whom mm>O

HOBOMB QZOUWO QZO BOOHMV 2MBH NOON mom OWOZOQOOO m0 OWQWB OZHBOHQOQ OBOQ >O<EEDO

H xHQZWQQO

 

76

 

N H N NN NH N om
N N N NN NH N NN
NH N N NH oH N NN
o o 0 ON H NN NN
N o N NN N NN NN
N N N NN N NH NN
N N N NN NH N NN
N N N NN ON N NN
N H N NN NH N HN
N o N NN NN N NN
N N N NH N N NN
N N H NN N NH NN
N H N NN NH NH NN
N N N NN 0N N NN
N N H NN N NN NN
N N o NN NH N NN
N N N NN NH NH NN
N N N NN NH N NN
N N H NN N HN HN
N N N NN NH N NN
N N N NN N NH NN
N N N HN NH N NN
N N o NN N NN NN
N N N NN NH NH NN
N N H NN NH N NN
mmmcogmmm pmme ccoomm pmme uncomm mmmaoammm mcoHprcmmmgNn mcoHHNpcmmmgm pmnssz
pampmHmcooaH so pompuoo so pooguoocH pampmHmcoo pwme apom “was apom szH
mo Hmoezz Ilpmme pmufim Ilpmme pmaHm mo pwnezz co pomphoo no poohuoocH pmme

adpoe no pomnhooaH co poopnoo adage

 

APPENDIX J

SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING RAW SCORES AND PERCENTILE
EQUIVALENTS FOR STUDENTS USING AN

AURAL/ORAL APPROACH

77

78

.mmmomhsm m>HaNhNQEoo How cmucmmmya mAN Homemv mpmmozoo OHmNm
mo pmmB Eamom may no dawn m>HpNEuoc Eonm mmhstm Ho>mH oHanoomoHoom mHuuH2*

 

 

Ob.H O0.0 O0.0H O0.0N bN.OO N0.0N OIOH cam:
H H O 0.0N ON ON OINH OH
H H O o.hH NH NH NINH OH
H H O o.OH OH HO HIO OH
O OH Ob 0.00 0O HO Ola NH
H H O 0.0H OH OH OINH HH
H H O O.bH OH NH NIO OH
OH Om OO 0.00 OO 0O OIHH m
H H m o.hH OH OH Olb O
H H O 0.0H OH ON NIOH b
H O on O.NO NO Om OHIHH O
H H O 0.0H OH OH HIOH O
H H OH 0.0N ON ON HIOH O
H H O O.NN HN ON HHIO O
H H OH o.hm hm hm Olb N
H H O 0.0N OH NO OIOH H

 

N NBS H @920 8533.5 888

 

magxwaam waxmugam pOmDfifiu .hkfiflz
mmnoom Name 8388 Name Smog. 88% 5mg. NEE No «3 N8 Bum
No m§m2 ”GEE mmHHpcmopmm 982

 

*OOOOOQQO A<OO\A<OD< z< OZHOD
OEZNQDEO mom OBZMH<>HDGM MAHBZMOOWQ 92¢ OmmOOm BOO OZHBOHQWQ <B<Q WOOEEDO

O NHQZOQQ<

APPENDIX K

SUMMARY DATA DEPICTING RAW SCORES AND PERCENTILE
EQUIVALENTS FOR STUDENTS USING A

TOTAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

79

80

.mmmomnsm m>HpNANQEoo you cmpcmmmua mud Homemv mwnmocoo onNm
mo pmms Eamom map No «pan m>NuNEuon scum wmpstw Hm>mH oHEocoomoHoom mHvoH=*

 

 

 

 

OO.N OO.NH NN.OO NH.bN NO.bN b0.0N OIOH COOS
H H ON O.NN HN EN NIOH OH
H N ON O.NN NN NN HIOH OH
H N ON O.NN ON NN HIN NH
N .OH OO O.NN OO NN OIN NH
N ON OO O.NN OO NN HHIN HH
OH OO ON O.NO NO OO NIN OH
N OH OO O.NN HO NN OINH N
H O OO 0.0N ON ON blNH N
H N ON O.HN NN ON NIN b
H OH OO O.NN ON OO OHINH O
N OH ON 0.00 NN HO NINH O
H OH OO O.NN ON ON NINH O
H OH OO O.NN HO ON OIOH N
O ON Ob O.HO HO HO NIOH N
H OH OO O.NN ON ON HIHH H
N 335 H 035 89.8385 m88N 28m Nam 88m Nam 98 Ram “3:2
8.80m ”Ems 85950 pmme Swan. cacomm memos ”ENE nHo mw< Havana

No gm: ”GEE mmHHEmogoN 58:

 

*OU<OOQQ< ZOHB<UHZDEEOU Q<BOB < OZHOD
OBZHODBO mom mezmq<>HDGm MHHBzmommm Qz< OOOOOO 3<O OZHBUHQMQ <E¢Q wm<szbm

M NHszmm<

APPENDIX L

NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR EACH SUBJECT
BY GROUP (TOTAL COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/ORAL)

FOR BOTH TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

81

APPENDIX L

NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR EACH SUBJECT
BY GROUP (TOTAL COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/ORAL)
FOR BOTH TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

 

Subject Number First Test Second Test

 

Total Communication Group

 

 

1 38 38

2 41 41

3 35 41

4 38 38

5 41 39

6 40 36

7 30 32

8 35 36
*9 38 41
10 44 43
11 39 40
12 39 4O
13 33 34
14 33 33
15 27 31
Mean 36.67 37.53

Aural/Oral Group

1 22 18

2 27 27

3 24 21

4 23 28

5 18 18
*6 33 32
7 20 13

8 16 18
*9 40 46
10 17 18
11 16 15
*12 41 4O
13 21 15
*14 17 17
15 23 23
Mean 23.87 23.27

 

*Indicates severe level of hearing loss.

82

APPENDIX M

SUMMARY DATA OF TEST ITEMS WHICH HAD ZERO OR HIGHLY
LIMITED VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTS BY GROUP (TOTAL

COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/ORAL)

83

APPENDIX M

SUMMARY DATA OF TEST ITEMS WHICH HAD ZERO OR HIGHLY
LIMITED VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTS BY GROUP (TOTAL

COMMUNICATION AND AURAL/ORAL)

Total Communication--First Test Administration

 

 

Item Number

Concept Tested

Percent Correct

 

10
11
12
13
14
16
18
21
25
32
34
35
36
40
41
42
43

Top
Through
Inside
Around
Over
Widest
Most
Between
Nearest
Corner
Row

Half

Not first or last
Below
Match
Always
Zero
Above
Every
Separated

100%
100%
100%
93%
93%
93%
100%
100%
100%
93%
100%
93%
93%
93%
0%
100%
93%
100%
93%
93%

 

84

85

Total Communication--Second Test Administration

 

 

Item Number Concept Tested Percent Correct
1 Top 100%
2 Through 93%
5 Inside 100%
8 Few 93%

10 Around 100%
11 Over 93%
12 Widest 93%
13 Most 93%
14 Between 100%
16 Nearest 93%
17 Second 100%
18 Corner 93%
21 Row 100%
25 Half 100%
30 Other 93%
32 Not first or last 93%
34 Below 93%
36 Always 100%
40 Zero 93%
41 Above 100%
42 Every 100%

43 Separated 93%

 

86

Aural/Ora1--First Test Administration

 

 

Item Number Concept Tested Percent Correct
1 Top 93%
31 Alike 0%
40 Zero 93%
47 Equal 0%

 

Auraleral--Second Test Administration

 

 

Item Number Concept Tested Percent Correct

 

31 Alike 0%

47 Equal 0%

 

APPENDIX N

SUMMARY DATA, BY GROUP (AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL COMMUNICATION)
AND CATEGORY (SPACE, QUANTITY, TIME, MISCELLANEOUS) OF TEST
ITEMS WHICH WERE ANSWERED INCORRECTLY, 15 TIMES OR MORE,

OVER BOTH FIRST AND SECOND TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

87

APPENDIX N

SUMMARY DATA, BY GROUP (AURAL/ORAL AND TOTAL COMMUNICATION)
AND CATEGORY (SPACE, QUANTITY, TIME, MISCELLANEOUS) OF TEST

ITEMS WHICH WERE ANSWERED INCORRECTLY, 15 TIMES OR MORE,

OVER BOTH FIRST AND SECOND TEST ADMINISTRATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Concept: Concept: Concept: Concept:
Space Quantity Time Miscellaneous
Aural/Oral Group
1. Next to Some, not many Beginning Alike
2. Middle Few Never Match
3. Farthest Widest Always Skip
4. Over Almost
5. Behind Half
6. Row As many
7. Center Medium-sized
8. Side Pair
9. Below Equal
10. Right Third
11. Above
12. Left
13. In order
Total Communication Group
1. Right As many Beginning Alike
Equal Never Match
Skip

 

Total Number of Concept Items Presented in Test

 

23

18

4

5

 

88

REFERENCES

89

REFERENCES

Alterman, A. "Language and the Education of Children
With Early Profound Deafness." American Annals
of the Deaf 115 (1970): 514-21.

Babbidge, H. Education of the Deaf. A Report to the Sec-
retary of Health, Education and Welfare by His
Advisory Committee on the Education of the Deaf.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1965.

Babbini, B. Manual Communication-Fingerspelling and the
Language of Signs. Champaign: University of
Illinois, 1976.

Bates, A. "Controversy in the Education of the Deaf."
The Teacher of the Deaf 73 (1975): 272-81.

Blevins, B. "The Myth of Total Communication." AOEHI
Bulletin (1976): 2—6.

Boehm, A. Boehm Test of Basic Concepts Manual. New York:
Psychological Corporation, 1971.

Bornstein, H. "A Description of Some Current Sign Systems
Designed to Represent English." American Annals of
the Deaf (June 1973): 454-63.

 

Carrow, E. The Test for Auditory Comprehension(foanguage.
Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts, 1973.

Connor, L. "That the Deaf May Hear and Speak." The
Volta Review 74 (1972): 518-27. ““—

Davis, J. "Performance of Young Hearing Impaired Children
on a Test of Basic Concepts." Journal of Speech
and Hearing_Research 17 (1974): 342-51.

"Reliability of Hearing Impaired Children's
Responses to Oral and Total Presentations of the
Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 42 (1977):
520-27.

90

91

Davis, H., and Silverman, S. Hearing and Deafness. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.

Denton, D. "A Study in the Educational Achievement of
Deaf Children." Report of the Proceedings of the
42nd Meetingfof the_Convention of American Instruc—
tors of the Deaf. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1966, pp. 428-33.

 

. "Total Communication." Maryland School for
the Deaf, October 1970.

Drumm, P. "Total Communication--Fraud or Reality?" The
Volta Review 74 (1972): 564-69.

 

Federal Register. Education of Handicapped Children.
Implementation of Part B of the Education of the
Handicapped Act, Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Office of Education, August 1977.

 

 

Furfey, P. "Total Communication and the Baltimore Deaf
Survey." American Annals of the Deaf (August 1974):
377-81.

Goldstein, M. "The Society of Progressive Oral Advocates:

Its Origin and Purpose." The Volta Review 19
(1917): 443-47.

Goodman, A. "Reference Zero Levels for Pure Tone Audi-
ometry." ASHA 7 (1965): 262-63.

Gustason, G.; Pfetzing, D.; and Zawalkow, E. Signing Exact
English. Modern Signs Press, 1975.

 

Hardy, M. "Speechreading." In Hearing and Deafness.
Edited by H. Davis and S. R. Silverman. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.

 

Jensema, C., and Trybus, R. Communication Patterns and
Educational Achievement of Hearing Impaired Stu-
dents. Washington, D.C.: Office of Demographic
Studies, Galludet College, August 1978.

 

 

. Reported EmotionalLBehavioral Problems Among

Hearing Impaired Children in Special_§ducational
Programs: United States, 1972-1973. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet

College, February 1975.

92

Karchmer, M., and Trybus, R. Who Are the Deaf Children in

 

 

"Mainstream" Programs? Washington, D.C.: Office
of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College, October
1977.

Lane, IL. ”Thoughts on Oral Advocacy Today . . . With
Memories of the Society of Oral Advocates." The

Volta Review 78 (April 1976): 136-43.

 

Letournea, N., and Young, V. "Total Communication Shuffles
Off to Buffalo." American Annals of the Deaf 120
(1975): 493—498.

 

McClure, W. "Current Problems and Trends in Education of
the Deaf." The Deaf American (January 1966): 8-14.

 

Michigan State Department of Education. Information Neces-
sary for the Placement of Students. Lansing:
Department of Education, 1977.

 

 

 

Miller, J. "Oralism Is Not an Academic Exercise--It Is a
Way of Life." The Volta Review (April 1970):
211-17.

Moulton, R., and Beasley, D. "Verbal Coding Strategies
Used by Hearing Impaired Individuals." Journal
of Speech and Hearinngesearch 18 (1975): 559-70.

 

 

Nix, G. "Total Communication: A Review of Studies Offered
in Its Support." The Volta Review (November 1975):
470-94.

Olson, J. "A Case for the Use of Sign Language in Critical
Years." American Annals of the Deaf 117 (June

 

1972): 397-400.

Owrid, H. "Education and Communication." The Volta Review
(April 1972): 225—34.

 

"A Position Paper of the American Organization for the Edu-
cation of Hearing Impaired." The Volta Review 77
(1975): 16-19.

 

Presnell, L. "Hearing Impaired Children's Comprehension
and Production of Syntax in Oral Language."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 16 (1973):
12-21.

 

Sachs, B.; Trybus, R.; Koch, H.; and Falberg, R. "Current
Developments in the Psychological Evaluation of Deaf
Deaf Individuals." Journal of Rehabilitation of
the Deaf 8 (1974): 132-41.

 

93

Schildroth, A. ”The Relationship of Nonverbal Intelligence

Siegel,

Test Scores to Selected Characteristics of Hearing
Impaired Students." Proceedingsof the Third Gal-
laudet Symposium on Research in Deafness: Educa-
tional Development Research Problems. Edited by
C. Williams. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College
Press, 1976.

G., and Broen, P. "Language Assessment." In
Communication Assessment and Intervention Strate-
gies. Edited by L. Lloyd. Baltimore, Md.: Uni-
versity Park Press, 1976.

Simmons, A. "Are We Raising Our Children Orally?" The

Volta Review (1971).

 

Simms, J., and Yater, V. "Language Evaluation of Hearing

Impaired Students: A Pragmatic Approach." In The
Speech Clinician and the Hearing Impaired Child.
Edited by R. Cozads. Springfield, Ill.:

Charles C. Thomas 00., 1974.

Stone, A. "Oral Education--A Challenge and a Necessity.”

Trybus,

The Volta Review 70 (May 1968): Reprint 909.

R., and Karchmer, M. "School Achievement Scores
of Hearing Impaired Children: National Data on
Achievement Status and Growth Patterns." American
Annals of the Deaf Directory of Programs and Ser-
vices 122 (1977): 62-69.

Van Uden, A. "New Realizations in the Light of the Pure

Vernon,

Vernon,

Oral Method." American Annals of the Deaf 72
(1970): 524-36.

M. "Mind Over Mouth--A Rationale for 'Total
Communication.'" The Volta Review 74 (December
1972): 529-39.

, and Brown, D. "A Guide to Psychological Tests

and Testing Procedures in the Evaluation of Deaf

and Hard-of—Hearing Children." Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders 29 (1964): 414—23.

 

M.; Westminster, M.; and Koh, S. "Effects of Oral
Preschool Compared to Early Manual Communication
on Education and Communication in Deaf Children."
American Annals of the Deaf (December 1971):
569-73.

94

Watson, D. Talk With Your Hands. Vol. I. Menasha, Wis.:
George Banta Co., Inc., 1973.

White, A., and Stevenson, V. "The Effects of Total Com—
munication, Oral Communication and Reading on the
Learning of Factual Information in Residential
School Deaf Children." American Annals of the
Deaf (February 1975): 48—57.

 

Wrightstone, J.; Aronow, M.; and Mockowitz, S. "Develop-
ing Reading Test Norms for Deaf Children."
American Annals of the Deaf 108 (1963): 311-16.

General References

Academic Achievement Test Results of a National Testigg
Program for Hearigg Impaired Students. United
States: Spring 1971. Washington, D.C.: Office
of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College, 1972.

Bergman, E. "Autonomous and Unique Features of American
Sign Language." American Annals of the Deaf 117
(February 1972): 20-24.

Caccamise, F. "Manual/Simultaneous Communication (M/SC)
Instruction at the National Technical Institute
for the Deaf (NTIC): An Introduction." American
Annals of the Deaf (November 1978): 801-23.

Cicourel, A., and Boese, R. "Sign Language Acquisition
and the Teaching of Deaf Children, Part 1."
American Annals of the Deaf 117 (February 1972):
27-37.

"Sign Language Acquisition and the Teaching of
Deaf Children, Part II." American Annals of the
Deaf 117 (June 1972): 403-11.

 

Further Studies in Achievement Testing, Hearing Impaired
Students. United States: Spring 1971. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet
College, 1973.

 

Fusfield, I. "How the Deaf Communicate . . . Speech."
American Annals of the Deaf 103 (1958): 243-54.

Levine, E. "Psychological Tests and Practices With the
Deaf: A Survey of the State of the Art." The
Volta Review (1974): 298-318.

95

Moores, D. Educating the Deaf: Psychological Principles

and Practices. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, Inc.,
1978.

O'Neill, J., and Oyer, H. Visual Communication for the
Hard of Hearing. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

Quigley, S. "The Influence of Fingerspelling on the
Development of Language, Communication and Edu-
cational Achievement in Deaf Children." Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Institute
for Research on Exceptional Children, University
of Illinois, 1967.

Rupp, R.; Smith, M.; Briggs, P.; Litvin, K.; Banachoueski,
S.; and Williams, R. "A Feasibility Scale for
Language Acquisition Routing for Young Hearing-
Impaired Children." Language, Speech and Hearigg
Services in Schools 8 (October 1977): 222—32.

Schlesinger, H., and Meadow, K. Sound and Sign: Childhood
Deafness and Mental Health. Los Angeles, Calif.:
University of California Press, 1972.

Studies in Achievement Testing, Hearing Impaired Students.
United States: Spring 1971. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College,
1973.

Wexler, H. "How Deaf Infants Use Language." American
Education (August 1978): 37.

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
I”1|WINWWWINIHIIIIHIIHIHIH‘IMW
31293100635360