Communication skills of deaf and hard-of-hearing college students: Objective measures and self-assessment

Spencer, Linda; Marschark, Marc; Machmer, Elizabeth; Durkin, Andreana; Borgna, Georgianna; Convertino, Carol

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.06.002

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of Likert scales in self-ratings of language skills run the risk of individuals inflating their assessments (and perhaps avoiding the end points). However, they have proven consistent with objective assessments of sign language and spoken language abilities among deaf university students with and without CIs in previous studies (e.g., Marschark et al, 2018; Spencer et al, 2018) as well as behavioural outcomes in a variety of studies conducted with that population (e.g., Convertino et al, 2009). Further, for the purposes of statistical analyses reported below, only relative differences in self-reported language skills are relevant here, and thus possible discrepancies with objective assessments are not at issue.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…That instrument was an abbreviated version of a questionnaire administered to incoming deaf students at RIT for the purposes of classroom service provision (i.e., interpreting, notetaking, real-time text) and in research. RIT has utilised this self-report measure instead of face-to-face communication interviews for over 30 years because it is faster, can be administered online, and has been shown to be both valid and reliable (Marschark et al, 2018; McKee, Stinson, & Blake, 1984; Spencer et al, 2018). Following the Language Communication Background Questionnaire, the questionnaire asked participants for the ages at which they learned to sign and had them rate their overall sign language skill on a 5-point Likert scale from “I don’t know sign language” to “excellent.” They also rated how well they understand spoken language on a 5-point scale from “nothing” to “everything people say” and how much they thought others understood their speech on a 5-point scale from “nothing” to “everything I say.” The latter two ratings were averaged to yield an overall measure of spoken language skill comparable to the LCBQ overall rating of sign language skill.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relations of social maturity, executive function, and self-efficacy among deaf university students

Marschark

Walton

Crowe

et al. 2018

Deafness & Education International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored possible associations of social maturity, executive function (EF), self-efficacy, and communication variables among deaf university students, both cochlear implant (CI) users and nonusers. Previous studies have demonstrated differences between deaf and hearing children and young adults in EF and EF-related social and cognitive functioning. EF differences also have been demonstrated between hearing children and deaf children who use CIs. Long-term influences of cochlear implantation in the social domain largely have not been explored, but were examined in the present study in terms of social maturity, as it might be related to EF and communication variables. Replicating and extending recent findings, social maturity was found to be related to somewhat different aspects of EF in CI users, deaf nonusers, and hearing students, but unrelated to hearing status, CI use, or deaf students’ use of sign language versus spoken language. Self-efficacy proved a predictor of self-reported socially mature and immature behaviours for all groups. Individuals’ beliefs about their parents’ views of such behaviours was a potent predictor of behaviours for deaf CI users and those deaf students who reported sign language as their best form of communication.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relations of social maturity, executive function, and self-efficacy among deaf university students

Marschark

Walton

Crowe

et al. 2018

Deafness & Education International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, they were asked whether "Sign language" or "Speaking/listening" was their best form of communication. These language selfratings have been used extensively with this population in previous studies, demonstrating that responses are consistent with objective assessments of sign language and spoken language abilities among deaf university students with and without CIs as well as with behavioral outcomes (e.g., Marschark et al 2018;Spencer et al 2018). Table 1 presents a summary of the participants' responses to the communication questions.…”

Section: Communication Questionnairementioning

confidence: 59%

Inferencing Abilities of Deaf College Students: Foundations and Implications for Metaphor Comprehension and Theory of Mind

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding nonliteral language requires inferencing ability and is an important but complex aspect of social interaction, involving cognitive (e.g., theory of mind, executive function) as well as language skill, areas in which many deaf individuals struggle. This study examined comprehension of metaphor and sarcasm, assessing the contributions of hearing status, inferencing ability, executive function (verbal short-term/working memory capacity), and deaf individuals' communication skills (spoken versus signed language, cochlear implant use). Deaf and hearing college students completed a multiple-choice metaphor comprehension task and inferencing tasks that included both social-emotional (i.e., theory of mind) and neutral inferences, as well as short-term memory span and working memory tasks. Results indicated the hearing students to have better comprehension of nonliteral language and the ability to make social-emotional inferences, as well as greater memory capacity. Deaf students evidenced strong relationships among inferential comprehension, communication skills, and memory capacity, with substantial proportions of the variance in understanding of metaphor and sarcasm accounted for by these variables. The results of this study enhance understanding of the language and cognitive skills underlying figurative language comprehension and theory of mind and have implications for the social functioning of deaf individuals.

show abstract

“…One limitation of the present study was the lack of either objective assessments of sign language ability or information about whether any of the deaf participants were native signers. With regard to the former issue, recent studies have indicated that deaf college students’ self-ratings of their sign language and spoken language skills usually are correlated with results of objective assessments, even if they sometimes overestimate those skills (Marschark, Machmer, et al, 2018; Spencer et al, 2018). With regard to the latter issue, several studies involving deaf college students have failed to find any advantage in either classroom learning or standardized achievement testing for earlier or native-signing deaf learners over later learners (e.g., Convertino et al, 2009; Crowe et al, 2017; Marschark, Shaver, et al 2015; Marschark, Spencer, et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussion Conclusion and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 Whether or not self-report measures are valid indicators of individuals’ skills in any particular domain is an empirical question. The self-report sign language and spoken language measures used in the present study have been validated in studies by Marschark et al (2018) and Spencer et al (2018). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical and real-world estimation abilities of deaf and hearing college students

Borgna

Walton

Convertino

et al. 2018

Deafness & Education International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various studies have examined possible loci of deaf learners’ documented challenges with regard to reading, usually focusing on language-related factors. Deaf students also frequently struggle in mathematics and science, but fewer studies have examined possible reasons for those difficulties. The present study examined numerical and non-numerical (real-world) estimation skills among deaf and hearing college students, together with several cognitive abilities likely to underlie mathematics performance. Drawing on claims in the literature and some limited evidence from research involving deaf children, the study also considered the possibility that the use of sign language and/or the use of cochlear implants and spoken language might facilitate deaf college students’ estimation skills and mathematics achievement more broadly. Results indicated relatively little impact of cochlear implant use or language modality on either estimation skills or overall mathematics ability. Predictors of those abilities differed for deaf and hearing learners. Results suggest the need to guard against overgeneralisations either within the diverse population of deaf learners or between deaf and hearing learners. They further emphasise the need for evidence-based practice in mathematics instruction appropriate for older deaf learners, rather than making assumptions from studies involving younger or narrowly-selected samples.

show abstract

Communication skills of deaf and hard-of-hearing college students: Objective measures and self-assessment

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

Relations of social maturity, executive function, and self-efficacy among deaf university students

Relations of social maturity, executive function, and self-efficacy among deaf university students

Inferencing Abilities of Deaf College Students: Foundations and Implications for Metaphor Comprehension and Theory of Mind

Numerical and real-world estimation abilities of deaf and hearing college students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About