Categorization and related verbalizations in deaf and hearing adolescents.

Abstract

"This study has investigated the categorization and verbalization processes of 24 adolescents, 8 of whom were profoundly deaf. The remaining subjects comprised 2 hearing groups, one group matched with the deaf subjects on age and IQ and the other group matched on Stanford Achievement and IQ. The Goldstein-Scheerer Object Sorting Test was administered and the deaf subjects were separately compared with each of the 2 control groups." It is concluded that deaf Ss "categorize, on this task, as adequately as the hearing subjects. They . . . have more inadequate verbalizations than hearing subjects and more adequate categorizations accompanied by inadequate verbalizations than hearing subjects matched on age and IQ . . . . [They] do not differ from hearing subjects in the type of verbalization or in the developmental level of the verbalizations used, or in their spontaneous changes of categorization throughout the test . . . . [They] have narrower categories than hearing adolescents of their own age and IQ though they do not differ from hearing subjects of the same achievement and IQ."

Verbal problem‐solving in autism spectrum disorders: A problem of plan construction?

“…Most notably, relatively little is known about the language histories or current language skills of the deaf participants included in these studies. In contrast to the ToM research literature, none of the above categorisation studies prior to 1985 report any information on the hearing status of parents or the language used at home (Furth, 1964;Kates et al, 1961;Koh et al, 1971;Liben, 1979;Pettifor, 1968;Silverman, 1967). Given the large numbers of deaf people who come from hearing families (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004), it is probably fair to assume that this was also the case for most of the participants in the above studies.…”

“…For example, in a series of card-sorting experiments, Furth (1964) reported equivalent levels of performance in age-and IQ-matched deaf and hearing adults when categorising according to different colour and shape combinations. Similarly, Kates et al (1961) observed no differences between a group of deaf adolescents and two groups of hearing high-school students in successful categorisation performance on the Goldstein-Scheerer Object Sorting Test (K. Goldstein & Scheerer, 1941). While there were group differences in the extent to which deaf participants could provide verbal labels for different category groupings, these differences disappeared once academic achievement was controlled for (Kates, Kates, Michael, & Walsh, 1961; see also Rosenstein, 1960).…”

“…Similarly, Kates et al (1961) observed no differences between a group of deaf adolescents and two groups of hearing high-school students in successful categorisation performance on the Goldstein-Scheerer Object Sorting Test (K. Goldstein & Scheerer, 1941). While there were group differences in the extent to which deaf participants could provide verbal labels for different category groupings, these differences disappeared once academic achievement was controlled for (Kates, Kates, Michael, & Walsh, 1961; see also Rosenstein, 1960). For Furth -a researcher known for claiming that deaf cognition fundamentally lacked language (Furth, 1966) -findings such as these indicated that concept processing abilities were intact in people who are deaf, and clearly separable from any difficulties with language (see Vernon, 1967, for a similar conclusion) 15 .…”

“…Information on the preferred or primary method of communication for deaf participants in the above studies is more readily available. Reflecting the educational practises of the time, participants in early studies were either reported to be attending oral-based schools (Kates et al, 1961;Rosenstein, 1960) or were provided with their task instructions orally (Pettifor, 1968). In some cases references were made to use of sign, gesture or pantomime where it was needed (Furth, 1964;Silverman, 1967) but the implication given is that deaf participants were expected to understand and attempt the task via Spoken English.…”

Authoritarianism among White and Black Deaf Adolescents: Two Measures Compared

“…Even so, while the scattered results are not wholly unmixed (Rosenstein, 1961;Goetzinger, 1967), there nevertheless is substantial agreement that the psychological traits of the deaf consistently differ from those of the hearing (M~klebust, 1960;Sharoff, 1960; for an opposing view, see Horlick & Miller, 1960). Several investigators have also found the deaf to be less conceptually abstract chan hearing individuals (McAndrew, 1948;Meyer, 1953;Myklebust, 1960;Wodin, 1961; for a contrary view, see Kates, et al, 1961). Several investigators have also found the deaf to be less conceptually abstract chan hearing individuals (McAndrew, 1948;Meyer, 1953;Myklebust, 1960;Wodin, 1961; for a contrary view, see Kates, et al, 1961).…”