Disclosure

Statement
We do not have any sources of nancial investments.

Non-nancially, we want to promote Gallaudet University.



Phonological Access in Deaf
Undergraduate Native
American Sign Language Users

Karen Garrido-Nag , PhD, CCC-SLP 1

Amanda Strasser , BS, BA 2

Lawrence Pick2, PhD

Daniel Koo2, PhD

1Department of Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences

2Department of Psychology

Acknowledgements
Funding Source
Gallaudet University Research InsLtute (GRI)

Research Assistants
Amanda Strasser, M.A.
Donna Guardino, B.A.
Timothy Ainger, M.A.
Carmen Jamis, M.S.
KrysLn Cook
Shu Han Guo
Mariah Ransom
James Waller
Abstract
One prevailing assumpLon about how deaf readers become
skilled readers is that they are able to employ phonological
awareness skills. This study examines the cogniLve, linguisLc,
and reading proles of skilled and unskilled deaf undergraduate
readers who are naLve American Sign Language users.
Outline
Specic Aims
IntroducLon
Deafness and Reading Literacy
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Speci?ic Aims
Ques5ons:
Are there idenLable paUerns of performance on phonology and
cogniLve linguisLc tasks that inuence reading acquisiLon in deaf
sign language users?
Do deaf sign language users exhibit a disLncLve skilled-unskilled
discrepancy on phonology and cogniLve linguisLc tasks?

Goal: Describe exploratory cogniLve, linguisLc, and reading

(phonology) proles of skilled and unskilled deaf undergraduate
readers who are sign language users
Neuropsychological assessments
Rhyme data (as part of an EEG task)
 Introduction: Reading Literacy
Literacy: ability to employ basic reading and wriLng skills

Spoken-phonological language skills are essenLal for reading acquisiLon

Congenitally and profoundly deaf children cannot access speech
before learning to read.
How are they acquiring reading (phonological) skills?

Median grade reading level of deaf high school graduates: 4 5

10% of deaf students read beyond an eighth grade level
Documented discrepancy between strong and weak readers.

(Bormauth, 1974; Allen, 1986; Carney & Moeller, 1998; Traxler, 2000; Perfeh & Sandak, 2000; Mayberry, 2002; Geers,
2003;Dickinson et al., 2006; Kelly & Barac-Cikoja, 2007)
 Factors that In?luence Reading Literacy

Linguis5c factors: Non-linguis5c factors:

Phonological Awareness* Intelligence*

Vocabulary* ExecuLve FuncLoning

Grammar/Syntax Short Term Memory

Listening comprehension MoLvaLon

Could deaf individuals u5lize these factors

(linguis5c and non-linguis5c) to develop reading skills?

(Perfeh, 1987; Becker, McElvany & Kortenbruck, 20100; Jonge & Jong, 1996; Baddeley, 2002; Baddeley, Hitch & Allen, 2009;
Bavelier, Newport, Hall, Supalla & Boulta, 2008; St. Clair Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Garrison, Long & Dowaliby, 1997; Stanovich,
Cunningham & Feeman, 1984) Dowa
 Phonology and Reading
teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words [is] highly
eecLve across all literacy domains and outcomes(NRP, 2000)
Some deaf individuals have acquired spoken English phonology
Are they using knowledge gained from visual or arLculatory
modaliLes, such as Cued Speech or visual phonology?
Are they using their L1 (ASL) to facilitate acquisiLon of spoken
language?
More likely to be successful readers if they have a strong sign language
foundaLon
However, majority demonstrate poor phonology
There are many skilled readers in the deaf popula5on.
The challenge is to discover what factors dis5nguish
them from unskilled readers.

(Dodd & Hermelin, 1977; Hanson & Fowler, 1987; Campell & Wright, 1988; Sterne & Goswami, 2000; Aparicio et al. 2007;
MacSweeney et al., 2008; Mayberry et al., 2011; Belanger, Baum & Mayberry, 2012) Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2008)
Theories of Sound Based Awareness Development

Qualita5ve Similarity Hypothesis

Reading development is qualitaLvely similar to a 2nd language
Milestones are quanLtaLvely delayed

Func5onal Equivalence Hypothesis

Use alternaLve sensory coding may develops speech-equivalent
phonological coding skills
Uneven development of skills
From age 12, if the primary means of learning is ASL their learning L1 is
equivalent to their acquisiLon in their wriUen L2
Comprehension diculLes may not be related to print/reading but also ASL
Ques%ons:
Can lip-reading skills subsLtute for listening skills?
Can manual gestures (e.g. Cued Speech or Visual Phonics) facilitate the
development of phonological coding?

(Wang, Trezek, Luckner & Paul, 2008; Campbell & Wright, 1989; Leybaert & Charlier, 1996; Narr, 2008))
Hearing Loss Demographics = Variability
E5ologies of hearing loss
Congenital
Age of onset

Speech and language rehabilita5on exposure and prac5ces

GeneLc TesLng and Early IdenLcaLon
Early IntervenLon
Variability in audiological proles of DHH students
Mild, Moderate, Severe, Profound
Hearing Aid or Cochlear Implant

(Padden & Humphries, 1988; Angelides & Aravi, 2007; Emmorey, Borinstein, & Thompson, 2005)
Hearing Loss Demographics = Variability

Types of Communica5on
American Sign Language (ASL), Pidgin Sign English (PSE)
Manually Coded English (MCE), Cued Speech (CS), Visual Phonics, Oral
~ 10% are exposed to sign language from birth
Communica5on Prole
Consistent language exposure
Skill level with method of communicaLon

Educa5onal Instruc5on
Mainstream (Alone, With deaf peers, Self-contained classrooms)
ResidenLal School

(Padden & Humphries, 1988; Angelides & Aravi, 2007; Emmorey, Borinstein, & Thompson, 2005)
Putting it together
Median grade reading level: 4 5th grade (Traxler, 2000)
Limited or no access to spoken speech
Qualita%vely dierent, limited or no phonological development?
Role of non-linguisLc factors
Heterogeneity in deaf and hard of hearing popula5on
Dierent cogniLve proles
Auditory, Linguis%c, Intelligence, and Academics
SuscepLbility to addiLonal neurocogniLve disorders or delays
Barriers:
Dicult to create a homogenous group for research analysis
Individualized EducaLon for deaf populaLon is resource-
consuming

How do we test deaf readers?

Are there norms?


What norms do we use?
Who is quali4ied to test?
In what language should we test?
Does hearing level make a difference?
ETC.
Standards for Neurocognitive Testing with deaf

Use the same measure for the general popula5on

With or without modicaLons
Use non-verbal tests

Researchers develop new set of norms

Small populaLon / limited variability

Develop assessments expressly for deaf ASL users

Ouen parallel other tests
Culturally appropriate
Examples:
Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT), ASL Stories, 5-1-U
Pollard, Redeiss, DeMaUeo, 2005; Pollard et al., 2007; Hill-Briggs et al., 2007; Morere & Allen, 2012; Morere, 2013)
Purpose of our Study
Begin descrip5ve analysis
Describe the prole of our deaf naLve signers
CogniLve, LinguisLc, Phonology
Is performance equivalent to hearing norms?
Is there a skilled-unskilled divide in our sample?
Are there idenLable factors that set
skillunskilled readers apart?
Exclusion/Inclusion Criteria

L1: American Sign Language (ASL)*(one prefers English)

IdenLed before age two

Severe to Profound hearing loss

No Cochlear Implant

Hearing aid permissible

Age: 18 40

Right-handedness

ACT Score above 10

Methodology: Participants
48 deaf undergraduates
Gender: Hearing aids:
Male: 15 21 parLcipants
Female: 33 (17 both, 2 Right, 2 Leu)
Frequency: Rarely to SomeLmes
Mean age: 22.62
Hearing Loss:
Age of ID: 10 months Severe to Profound

Educa5on: Years in College: 3 years

Mainstream: 13 Speech Therapy: 42 / 48
Residen%al: 12
Mixed: 23
Methodology: Procedures
ACT Scores

Neurocogni5ve Assessment
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence (WASI-II)

Phoneme DetecLon Task (PDT)

Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT-R)

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT-III)

Behavioral EEG Rhyming Task

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence

Instruc5ons
ModicaLons
Subtests
Block Design
Matrix Reasoning
Vocabulary
LAMP. Dene LAMP.
SimilariLes
How are RED and GREEN alike?
Phoneme Detection Test
Is /k/ in cat?

Is /s/ in cent?

Is /k/ in chat?

Is /g/ in grab?

YES NO
Peabody Individualized Assessment Test
See the boy with the hat?
Woodcock Reading and Mastery Test
Subtest
Passage Comprehension
Josie and Phillip are in the kitchen. Josie is sehng the table, ______
Phillip nishes dinner. He is making gumbo.
Rhyming test
You will see pairs of words on the screen.
Decide if the word pairs RHYME or NOT.
You will see a triangle.
Please read the word quickly.
This triangle and the word will disappear immediately.
Another triangle with a word inside it will appear.
Please read the second word.
The second word and triangle will also disappear quickly.
Decide if the second word rhymed with the rst word.
Press 1 if the words rhyme.
Press 2 if the words did not rhyme.
Press 3 if you do not know.
When you press the buUon a new trial will begin.


rocks
glue
shoe
blue
Results
Exploratory research using two standard deviaLons as a
measure of signicant dierence.

First, examined standardized scores for an paUern dierences.

Performing the same as hearing?
In what areas are they weaker?
 Comparison of ACT Norms
30

25
Score

20

15
NaLonal
10
Study
5
20.5 17 21.3 21 21.1 19
0

English Reading Composite

DEAF STUDENTS ACT MEAN SD RANGE

ENGLISH 17 5 12 - 22
READING 21 5 16 - 27
COMPOSITE 19 4 15 - 23
 Standard Score Norms
120
Standard Score

100

80

60
NaLonal
40
Study
20
100 102 100 87 100 75
0

WASI-II WRMT-III PIAT-R

DEAF STUDENT ASSESSMENTS MEAN SD RANGE

WASI-II FSIQ-4 102 11 91 - 113
WRMT-III PC 87 15 72 - 102
PIAT-R 75 13 62 - 88
 WASI-II Vocab WMS-IV SS
60 12

50 10

Scaled Score
8
T-Scores

40

30 6

20 4

10 2

50 51 10 9
0 0

NaLonal Study NaLonal Study

TEST MEAN SD RANGE TEST MEAN SD RANGE

WASI-II 51 10 41 - 61 WMS IV 9 2 7 - 11
Vocab Sym. Span
 PDT & Rhyme RT PDT & Rhyme Accuracy
3000 120

2500 100

2000 80

Percent Correct
Reac5on TIme

1500 Hearing 60 NaLonal

Study Study

1000 40

500 20

0 0
PDT Speed Rhyme Speed PDT Acc Rhyme Acc

PHONOLOGY TEST MEAN SD RANGE

PDT Accuracy 59 % 10 % 49 - 70 %
RHYMING Accuracy 53% 19 % 34 72 %
PDT Speed 1829 985 845 - 2814
RHYMING Speed 1101 1080 21 - 2181
(Grossi et al., 2001; Koo et al., 2008)
Skilled and Unskilled
There was no signicant skilled-unskilled
paUern seen in our standard score data.
CogniLve-linguisLc tesLng
Phonological tesLng

We are doing a second analysis on raw

data. There is a skill-unskilled trend.

 Is the performance of deaf na5ve signers comparable
with typical hearing readers on cogni5ve tasks?

YES NO
Is the performance of deaf na5ve signers comparable
with typical hearing readers on phonological tasks?

YES NO
Does there appear to be a unskilled skilled
separa5on?

YES NO
Discussion: Cognitive Linguistic Tasks
L1 (ASL) inuence
Historically, deaf readers with a strong L1 (ASL) foundaLon
perform similar to their hearing peers.
ImplicaLon for results

Other cogni5ve linguis5c tasks

Just started to analyze other domains

Psychometrics
Standard scores do not fully express the variability in the deaf
populaLon
They look typical and we know their performance is not.
Discussion: Cognitive Linguistic Tasks
Gradua5on rate: 47%
75 percent reten%on rate for rst year students this fall--one of
the highest reten%on gures in the University's history
Four year gradua5on rate: 7 %
Gallaudet Universitys Six-Year Gradua%on Rate (Cohort 2007) is
43%. This is our all-%me highest gradua%on rate.
Unemployment: 16.1% WHY?
AGAIN, reading level is at 4th to 5th grade.
Only 10% read beyond eighth grade level.
English prociency requirements
Gallaudet English Placement Tests
www.gallaudet.edu
Discussion: Phonology
Phonology
AcquisiLon
QualitaLve Similarity Hypothesis
FuncLonal Equivalence Hypothesis
Access to phonology (visual or spoken)
Brain OrganizaLon
L1 Benet
Early IntervenLon / Early amplicaLon
Other cogni5ve domains
Access to world knowledge
Role of educaLon
Socio-emoLonal well-being
Increasing numbers of dual diagnosis
Under diagnosis before? Psychometrics and SensiLvity of tesLng?
Svartholm, 1993; Yoshinaga-itano, 2014

Discussion: Skilled/Unskilled
Research has shown there is a skilled/unskilled split.
We did not nd in our study, why?
Raw scores starLng to some disparity, especially for phonology
AuthenLc assessment or process approach
Variability in the populaLon
Division of strong and weak
Signers!! Tested on their cogniLve, linguisLc skills using English
norms
Evaluate prole compared with other cogniLve linguisLc tasks
Look at electrophysiology (rhyming task)
Dierences in brain organizaLon
Evaluate younger children
Do their paUerns of performance look similar to college students?
Explore risk and preventaLve factors
Can we idenLfy which children will struggle?
Conclusion
We need further research.
L1 (ASL) vs. L1 (Oral Language)
Psychometrics
Dierent Domains
Brain Behavior relaLonships
Cross-secLonal and Longitudinal
IntervenLon techniques
 Questions?
Email karen.garrido-nag@gallaudet.edu
 References
Allen, T. E. (1986). PaUerns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. Deaf children in America, 161-206.
Angelides, P., & Aravi, C. (2007). The development of inclusive pracLces as a result of the process of integraLng deaf/hard of hearing students. European journal
of special needs educaLon, 22(1), 63-74.
Aparicio, M., Gounot, D., Demont, E., & Metz-Lutz, M. N. (2007). Phonological processing in relaLon to reading: an fMRI study in deaf readers. Neuroimage, 35(3),
1303-1316.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of communicaLon disorders, 36(3), 189-208.
Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 438-456.
Bavelier, D., Newport, E. L., Hall, M., Supalla, T., & Boutla, M. (2008). Ordered short-term memory diers in signers and speakers: ImplicaLons for models of short-
term memory. CogniLon, 107(2), 433-459.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading moLvaLon as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of
EducaLonal Psychology, 102(4), 773.
Blanger, N. N., Baum, S. R., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012). Reading diculLes in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty!. ScienLc Studies of
Reading, 16(3), 263-285.
Bormuth, J. R. (1973). Reading literacy: its deniLon and assessment. Reading research quarterly, 7-66.
Campbell, R., & Wright, H. (1988). Deafness, spelling and rhyme: How spelling supports wriUen word and picture rhyming skills in deaf subjects. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(4), 771-788.
Carney, A. E., & Moeller, M. P. (1998). Treatment ecacyhearing loss in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(1), S61-S84.
Dodd, B., & Hermelin, B. (1977). Phonological coding by the prelinguisLcally deaf. PercepLon & Psychophysics, 21(5), 413-417.
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., & Thompson, R. (2005). Bimodal bilingualism: code-blending between spoken English and American Sign Language. In Proceedings
of the 4th InternaLonal Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 663-673).
Garrison, W., Long, G., & Dowaliby, F. (1997). Working memory capacity and comprehension processes in deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
EducaLon, 2(2), 78-94.
Geers, A., & Brenner, C. (2003). Background and educaLonal characterisLcs of prelingually deaf children implanted by ve years of age. Ear and hearing, 24(1),
2S-14S.
Grossi, G., Coch, D., Coey-Corina, S., Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Phonological processing in visual rhyming: a developmental ERP study. Journal of
CogniLve Neuroscience, 13(5), 610-625.
 References
Hanson, V. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Memory & CogniLon, 15(3),
199-207.
Hill-Briggs, F., Dial, J. G., Morere, D. A., & Joyce, A. (2007). Neuropsychological assessment of persons with physical disability, visual impairment or
blindness, and hearing impairment or deafness. Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 22(3), 389-404.
de Jonge, P., & de Jong, P. F. (1996). Working memory, intelligence and reading ability in children. Personality and Individual Dierences, 21(6),
1007-1020.
Kelly, L. P., & Barac-Cikoja, D.. (2007). The Comprehension of Skilled Deaf Readers (pp. 244-80). K. Cain, & J. Oakhill (Eds.). New York: Guilford Press.
Koo, D., Crain, K., LaSasso, C., & Eden, G. F. (2008). Phonological Awareness and Short-Term Memory in Hearing and Deaf Individuals of Dierent
CommunicaLon Backgrounds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145(1), 83-99.
Leybaert, J., & Charlier, B. (1996). Visual speech in the head: The eect of cued-speech on rhyming, remembering, and spelling. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf EducaLon, 1(4), 234-248.
MacSweeney, M., Capek, C. M., Campbell, R., & Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain: the neurobiology of sign language. Trends in cogniLve sciences,
12(11), 432-440.
Mayberry, R. I. (2002). CogniLve development in deaf children: The interface of language and percepLon in neuropsychology. Handbook of
neuropsychology, 8(Part II), 71-107.
Mayberry, R. I., Del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relaLon to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducaLon, 16(2), 164-188.
Morere, D., & Allen, T. (2012). Assessing literacy in deaf individuals: NeurocogniLve measurement and predictors. Springer.
Morere, D. A. (2013). The Signed Verbal Learning Test: Assessing Verbal Memory of Deaf Signers. Sign Language Studies, 14(1), 39-57.
Narr, R. F. (2008). Phonological awareness and decoding in deaf/hard-of-hearing students who use Visual Phonics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
EducaLon, enm064.
NaLonal Reading Panel (US), NaLonal InsLtute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the naLonal reading panel: Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scienLc research literature on reading and its implicaLons for reading instrucLon: Reports of
the subgroups. NaLonal InsLtute of Child Health and Human Development, NaLonal InsLtutes of Health.
References
Padden, Carol, and Tom Humphries. "Deaf in America: Voices from a culture." (1988).
Perfeh, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading opLmally builds on spoken language: ImplicaLons for deaf readers.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducaLon, 5(1), 32-50.
Pollard Jr, R. Q., Rediess, S., & DeMaUeo, A. (2005). Development and validaLon of the Signed Paired Associates
Test. RehabilitaLon Psychology, 50(3), 258.
Pollard Jr, R. Q., DeMaUeo, A., Lentz, E., & Rediess, S. (2007). A prose recall test using stories in American sign
language. RehabilitaLon Psychology, 52(1), 11.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). ExecuLve funcLons and achievements in school: Shiuing,
updaLng, inhibiLon, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745-759.
Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and phonemes in deaf children.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(05), 609-625.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cogniLve skills, and early reading
progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 278-303.
Svartholm, K. (1993). Bilingual educaLon for the deaf in Sweden. Sign Language Studies, 81(1), 291-332.
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test: NaLonal norming and performance standards for deaf and
hard-of-hearing students. Journal of deaf studies and deaf educaLon, 5(4), 337-348.
Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J. L., & Paul, P. V. (2008). The role of phonology and phonologically related skills in
reading instrucLon for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 396-407.
 WRMT-III PC
40

35

30
Raw Score

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Par5cipant
 PIAT-R RC
120

100

80
Raw Score

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Par5cipants
 WASI-II Vocab
60

50

40
Raw Score

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Par5cpant
 WMS-IV SS
45

40

35

30
Raw Scores

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Par5cipants