Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, 5971

doi:10.1093/deafed/enw065
Advance Access publication October 27, 2016
Empirical Manuscript

EMPIRICAL MANUSCRIPT

American Sign Language and Academic English:

Factors Inuencing the Reading of Bilingual Secondary
School Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students
Jessica A. Scott1,* and Robert J. Hoffmeister2
1
Georgia State University and 2Boston University
*Correspondence should be sent to Jessica Scott, Georgie State University, PO Box 3979, 30 Pryor Street, Atlanta, GA 30302-3979 (e-mail: Jscott96@gsu.edu)

Abstract
For many years, researchers have sought to understand the reading development of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students.
Guided by prior research on DHH and hearing students, in this study we investigate the hypothesis that for secondary school
DHH students enrolled in American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual schools for the deaf, academic English prociency
would be a signicant predictor of reading comprehension alongside ASL prociency. Using linear regression, we found
statistically signicant interaction effects between academic English knowledge and word reading uency in predicting the
reading comprehension scores of the participants. However, ASL remained the strongest and most consistent predictor of
reading comprehension within the sample. Findings support a model in which socio-demographic factors, ASL prociency,
and word reading uency are primary predictors of reading comprehension for secondary DHH students.

Educators of the Deaf have long struggled to develop literacy
skills among deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students that are
comparable to their hearing peers. The aim of this article is to
further our understanding of the factors that inuence the read-
ing comprehension of bilingual DHH students who use American
Sign Language (ASL). In particular, we examine the role that
academic English plays in the reading comprehension of middle
and high school aged DHH students. Research with hearing stu-
dents has identied academic English prociency as a major
roadblock to the reading comprehension of hearing students
(e.g., Chenhansa & Schleppegrell, 1998), but this skill has not
been systematically examined with DHH students.
The Relationship Between ASL and English
prociency
As research in the eld of Deaf Education has evolved, research-
ers have over the last 30 years turned their attention to ASL pro-
ciency and its relationship with other academic skills. For
example, linguists have explored the ways in which ASL devel-
ops as either a rst or second language among DHH students,
nding that the later ASL is acquired as a rst language, the
higher the frequency of errors in ASL production and compre-
hension (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006; Mayberry, 2007).
Researchers have found that early and late rst language (L1)
learners performed similarly within-group on language tasks,
regardless of whether the language was spoken or signed
(Mayberry & Locke, 2003)in other words, regardless of the
modality (gesturalvisual or oralaural), the role of early lan-
guage exposure seems to be critical for achieving a higher L1
prociency. Furthermore, research in the eld suggests that
DHH children who are exposed to ASL later in life not only do
not develop native-like prociency in ASL but also struggle
more with English than children who are exposed to ASL earlier
(Mayberry, 2007). For these reasons, the relationship between
ASL uency and English literacy has become an important topic
in the eld of deaf education.
A correlation between ASL prociency and reading comprehen-
sion has been conrmed in the literature several times (Cummins,
2006; DeLana, Gentry & Andrews, 2007; Strong & Prinz, 1997;

Received February 29, 2016; revisions received September 22, 2016; accepted September 27, 2016
The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@.com

59
 60 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1
Hoffmeister, 2000). ASL prociency also appears to have an
inuence on the writing of DHH students (Singleton, Morgan,
DiGello, Wiles & Rivers, 2004). It is possible that examining the
ASL/English relationship may lead to identifying the causes of
differences in achievement between DHH children with deaf or
hearing parents, since students with deaf parents are typically
identied as stronger ASL users and have higher academic
achievement (Charrow & Fletcher, 1974). However, studies have
shown that parent and child ASL uency may be more important
to reading comprehension than whether a childs parents are deaf
or hearing (Novogrodsky, Caldwell Harris, Fish & Hoffmeister,
2014; Strong & Prinz, 1997).
Cummins (2006) explains this phenomenon with his linguis-
tic interdependence hypothesis, arguing that DHH students
gain language prociency through instruction in ASL, which
benets them in both the development of their ASL prociency
(or L1 in Cummins framework) and their English reading skills
(their L2). Furthermore, theoretical models of language acquisi-
tion argue that a strong foundation in ASL is a prerequisite
for the development of strong English skills (Bailes, 2001;
Cummins, 2006). Although some have argued that the linguistic
interdependence hypothesis is not appropriate for DHH chil-
dren as ASL has no written form (Mayer & Wells, 1996) and that
signed English should be used instead for completing this lin-
guistic transfer (Wilbur, 2000), the correlation between ASL and
reading skill in the literature has led some researchers to re-
examine the development of literacy and its relationship with a
uent visual language among DHH students (Kuntze, Golos &
Enns, 2014). Simple exposure to ASL and English is unlikely
to be sufcient for linguistic development and transfer, and
educators must engage in what is called cultivated transfer
connections between the languages and modalities need to be
explicitly taught (Bailes, 2001), and attention must be paid to
more complex elements of language such as polysemous words
and phrasal translations (Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014).
There are several weaknesses in this literature that must be
addressed. Many studies examining the relationship between
ASL prociency and reading comprehension have used proxies
for ASL prociency, such as parental sign uency or home lan-
guage (DeLana et al. 2007). Although some studies have used
standardized rubrics (Beal-Alvarez, 2016; Singleton et al. 2004),
they are still the exception rather than the rule. Additionally,
while academic English prociency has been found the be
important for hearing students (Bailey, Butler, Stevens & Lord,
2007; Uccelli, Dobbs & Scott, 2013), this particular type of reading
has not been systematically studied with regard to DHH stu-
dents. The present study seeks to extend prior research by
examining the possible relationship between ASL prociency,
academic English prociency, and reading comprehension for
DHH students.
What is Academic English Prociency?
Academic language refers to the language of schooling, a lan-
guage necessary to master for success in secondary and post-
secondary education (Schleppegrell, 2001). In early research
that addressed the differences between academic and colloquial
language, two broad constructs representing each of these areas
emerged: basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and
cognitive academic language prociency (CALP) (Cummins,
1984). This early distinction between the types of language used
in social settings versus academic settings was helpful for
understanding the types of challenges children faced as they
moved through the grades. However, the division of academic
and colloquial English into distinct categories could be consid-
ered articial and an inaccurate reection of the nature of lan-
guage. It may be more accurate to suggest that language exists
on a continuum ranging from more academic to more colloquial
(Snow & Uccelli, 2009). For example, academic English tends to
be more authoritative and detached than colloquial language,
which may be more expressive and interactive. Academic
English features explicit markers of organization that connect
ideas logically across a text in order to build an argument,
which are not frequently found in more colloquial language
(Uccelli, Phillips-Galloway, Barr, Meneses & Dobbs, 2015).
Academic English also typically features wider range of lexical
diversity than colloquial language to facilitate clear communi-
cation with those reading ones academic writing (Fang,
Schleppegrell, & Cox, 2006; Snow & Uccelli, 2009).
Researchers have recently proposed an innovative operatio-
nalization of a cross-disciplinary construct of academic English
prociency. This construct, Core Academic Language Skills
(CALS) refers to a constellation of high-utility language skills
that correspond to prevalent linguistic features of academic
texts and are, consequently, hypothesized to predict reading
comprehension across content areas (Uccelli et al. 2015).
Researchers believe that a cross-disciplinary academic English
prociency construct may be critical for hearing upper elemen-
tary and middle school students (Uccelli et al., 2013).
When considering DHH students who use ASL as their pri-
mary language and are frequently learning English through
print (see Hoffmeister & Caldwell-Harris, 2014), their ability to
understand written English linguistic features particular to aca-
demic discourse may be especially important for success in sec-
ondary and post-secondary school. A DHH student with limited
access to spoken English may be expected to use and under-
stand academic English solely through print exposure. It is
unclear whether difculty with reading advanced texts can be
attributed to difculty with academic English structures.
The Potential Role of Academic English in DHH
Childrens Reading Comprehension
It has been theorized that DHH students, in their development
of English, are often exposed directly to English CALP through
text without having developed the BICS prociency in spoken
English; therefore, without this more colloquial language
base, DHH students struggle to acquire academic English skills
(Mayer, 2009). Bartolome (1998) argues that language minority
students are at a disadvantage for acquiring academic English
because they may not be exposed to or participate regularly in
academic discourses in their native language. If this is the case,
no transfer of these language skills from the rst to the second
language can occur. DHH students may also have limited access
to academic discourse either in ASL or English, given that the
majority of DHH children are from hearing families who may
struggle to communicate with their children (MacSweeney,
Capek, Campbell & Woll, 2008). This makes the teaching of aca-
demic English skills in the deaf education classroom of even
greater importance.
This study investigates the contribution of academic English
skills and of ASL prociency on secondary level bilingual DHH
students reading comprehension. We hypothesized that lin-
guistic skills play an important role in the reading comprehen-
sion of DHH children in middle and high school, a time when
they are more likely to be exposed to and expected to gain infor-
mation from academic texts. ASL prociency is included not
only as a critical cognitive and L1 foundation for these students
 J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 61

but also as a potential source of transfer following Cummins Table 1. Demographic statistics for sample participants (n = 41)
interdependence hypothesis. Students also certainly need to
Demographic data for students in the sample
develop language prociency in the L2 (English), particularly L2
academic language prociency through exposure to print, Gender Female 24 (59%)
rather than through spoken language. We argue that for those Male 17 (41%)
students being educated bilingually, ASL instruction and devel- Grade 6th 8 (20%)
opment is crucial to their acquisition of language and literacy 7th 5 (12%)
skills. This paper explores the potential relationship between 8th 6 (15%)
reading comprehension, ASL prociency, and/or academic 9th 5 (12%)
English knowledge through the following research questions: 10th 1 (2%)
11th 8 (20%)
1. Does academic English prociency predict reading compre-
12th 8 (20%)
hension scores among secondary DHH students, when Parent Hearing Status Hearing 36 (88%)
controlling for socio-demographic factors, DHH factors, Deaf 5 (12%)
and word reading uency? Ethnicity White 21 (51%)
2. Does ASL prociency predict reading comprehension Latino/a 10 (24%)
scores among secondary DHH students, when controlling Black 2 (5%)
for socio-demographic factors, DHH factors, and word Asian 3 (7%)
reading uency? Biracial 3 (7%)
3. Does English academic language prociency account for Other 1 (2%)
unique variance in the reading comprehension perfor- Not Reported 1 (2%)
mance of secondary DHH students, after controlling for Amplication Use Hearing aid(s) 19 (46%)
socio-demographic factors, DHH factors, word reading u- Cochlear implant(s) 8 (20%)
ency, and ASL prociency? No amplication used 14 (34%)

Methods biracial, or other ethnic backgrounds. The use of amplication

Setting and Participants
Three schools self-identied as bilingual schools for DHH stu-
dents participated in this study. All three of the schools are
large center schools for the Deaf. Two of the schools are located
in the northeast and one is in the western United States. Two of
the schools in this study enrolled 60% to 82% of students who
qualied for free or reduced lunch (National Center for Research
Statistics, NCES, 2011). These data are not available for one of
the schools.
The researchers obtained general demographic information,
such as, gender, school level, and race/ethnicity. In addition, we
collected demographic information specic to students who are
DHH, including amplication use and whether their parents
were deaf or hearing. Participants in this study were middle and
high school students enrolled in the three schools. Forty-one
students participated in this study: 16 students from the rst
school, 19 from the second school, and 6 from the third school.
Although this is a relatively small number of participants,
research has noted difculty in recruiting DHH students for
research, as deafness is a low-incidence phenomenon in an
overtested population (Cawthon, Winton, Garberoglio & Gobble,
2011). It is typical for studies conducted with this population to
draw from smaller-than-ideal sample sizes of no more than 50
DHH students (see Berent, Kelley, Schmitz & Kenney, 2009;
Miller, Lederberg & Easterbrooks, 2013; Schirmer, Schaffer,
Therrien & Schirmer, 2012).
Of the 41 participants, 19 were enrolled in middle school and
22 were enrolled in high school (mean = 8.9; range 612).
Twenty-four participants were female and 17 were male. A
small subset of the participants had at least one deaf parent
(n = 5). The remaining students came from hearing families. No
participant in this sample had been diagnosed with an addi-
tional disability with the exception of two students with a visual
impairment. These students required assessments to be adminis-
tered in large print. Slightly over half the sample (51%) was white;
the remaining 49% included students of Latino/a, black, Asian,
varied widely, with the majority of participants using some
type of amplication, either hearing aids or cochlear implants.
However, a sizeable minority (n = 14; 34.15%) of students did not
use amplication (Table 1).
Measures
Each school site provided data from standardized reading com-
prehension assessments for all participants. We used these
scores as the outcome variable. In addition, we administered
three assessments to all participants: one assessment of aca-
demic English prociency, one assessment of word reading u-
ency, and one assessment of ASL prociency.
Reading Comprehension
Data were collected using two measures of reading comprehen-
sion. These measures were administered by school personnel
and were administered in the same semester as all researcher-
administered assessments. Scores from the Stanford Achievement
Tests, Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI; Harcourt Educational
Measurement, 1996) were obtained from two of the schools. The
SAT-HI is designed for use with DHH students ranging from kin-
dergarten through high school. This assessment presents stu-
dents with a variety of passages in English print followed by
multiple-choice questions. Passages were primarily ction, but
also included advertisements, letters, and informational selec-
tions. If the SAT-HI was not available the Measures of Academic
Progress (MAP; Northwest Evaluation Association, 2012) was
used to assess reading comprehension. The MAP assessment in-
volves a number of subtests, including mathematics and lan-
guage. For the purposes of this study, only the MAP reading
comprehension scores were used.
In order to complete analysis with a common outcome mea-
sure for all participants, we converted scores on the MAP
assessment to scores on the SAT-HI via a grade equivalent
based linking procedure. First, we converted the MAP scale
scores to grade equivalent scores, following the MAP scoring
 62 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1
guidelines. Next, we assumed that grade equivalent scores on
the MAP are equal to grade equivalent scores on the SAT-HI.
Under this assumption, we used the SAT-HI scoring tables to nd
the SAT-HI scale score that corresponds to the MAP (and, equiva-
lently, SAT-HI) grade equivalent. The scaled scores from the SAT-
HI that corresponded to the MAP grade equivalents were the ulti-
mate outcome measure for the six students with MAP scores in
this study. Scaled scores are preferred over grade equivalents
because of their statistical properties (Kolen & Brennan, 2014).
Since both assessments were designed to obtain a similar out-
come measure, we believe this process to be reliable.
Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency
The Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF; Mather,
Hammill, Allen & Roberts, 2004) was used because it measures
the ability to quickly and accurately recognize printed words
without requiring the student to read out loud, which is inap-
propriate for students who use a signed rather than spoken lan-
guage. To complete the TOSWRF, students silently read a series
of words printed with no spaces between them (e.g., onmygo).
Over a span of 3 minutes, students were asked to draw a line
between as many word boundaries as they could (e.g., on/my/
go). Fluency was reported as the raw score (which equates to the
total number of words identied in 3 minutes) and served as a
control predictor in the regression models and proxy for decod-
ing ability. Traditional measures of decoding ability often ask
students to orally sound out nonsense words; however, given
the population of the study this method of examining decoding
skill would not have been an accurate reection of students
word reading ability.
ASL Assessment Instrument
The ASL Assessment Instrument (ASLAI) is designed to assess
DHH students ASL prociency in a wide developmental span
(ages 418) (Hoffmeister et al., 2014). This research-based
assessment is designed to measure ASL prociency through the
following receptive subtests: ASL Analogies, ASL Antonyms,
ASL Synonyms, ASL Plurals, ASL Rare Vocabulary, and ASL
Syntax. The assessment is computer-based and given electroni-
cally. As the measure of ASL prociency, we used a total recep-
tive ASLAI score computed as the mean of average subtest
scores on the receptive ASLAI. We determined that using an
unweighted mean score of the receptive ASLAI subtests as the
measure of ASL prociency was appropriate after testing the
unidimensionality of the set of subtests through a Principal
Components Analysis (discussed further in Results).
Core Academic Language Skills Instrument
We measured academic English prociency using the Core
Academic Language Skills Instrument (CALS-I), which was devel-
oped by Uccelli and colleagues for use with English-speaking
students enrolled in grades 4 through 8 (Uccelli et al. 2014,
2015). The purpose of this assessment is to examine students
ability to understand and produce language forms and struc-
tures that are typically present in academic English texts, such
as use of connective words, morphologically related terms, and
words that signal organizational structure, to name a few
(Uccelli et al., 2014, 2015). This group-administered paper and
pencil assessment lasts approximately 45 minutes.
Among hearing students, the assessment is delivered
through both print and spoken English; however, as many of
the DHH students in this study did not have full access to spo-
ken English, the assessment was presented through printed
English only. This was a difcult choice on the part of the
authors, who acknowledge that assessing academic English
through print English may present an additional barrier to DHH
students. However, to translate the assessment into ASL would
mean that the assessment would become one of academic ASL
rather than academic English, and thus would not answer the
research questions of the study. In order to minimize the dif-
culty presented by general reading comprehension, a pilot test
was undertaken to examine readability. This pilot testing
involved feedback from teachers on the appropriateness of the
vocabulary and readability for DHH students at this age. The
teachers who reviewed the assessment reported that they did
not believe there were vocabulary items or grammatical struc-
tures outside of assessment targets that a typical DHH high
school student would not know. In addition, the assessment
was initially designed for hearing children in late elementary
school and middle school (grades 48), and for this study was
administered with DHH children in middle and high school
(grades 612). This out-of-grade-level testing was another
attempt to ensure that the barrier of reading comprehension
would be minimized as much as possible.
Guided by this preliminary pilot work, the CALS-I form used
in this study was an adaptation for DHH students of the CALS-I
Form 1, which is divided into nine tasks seen as essential for
academic English mastery: Connecting Ideas, Tracking Themes,
Organizing Texts, Breaking Words, Identifying Denitions, Sure
or Unsure, and Understanding Responses (see Appendix A for
examples of questions from each of the included CALS-I subt-
ests). Two subtests of the original CALS-I, Comprehending
Sentences and Writing Denitions, were excluded from this
study due to their reliance on spoken language. The tasks vary
in response type from multiple choice, to ordering sentences, to
constructed response.
The authors of the CALS-I have found robust reliability (0.82
according to split half reliability), and strong predictive and con-
tent validity (Uccelli et al. 2014). The assessment developers
report robust evidence of the CALS-Is unidimensionality. They
also found that even after controlling for reading uency, CALS-I
scores signicantly predicted reading comprehension (as mea-
sured by a standardized assessment) in hearing 4th to 8th grade
students (Uccelli et al., 2014, 2015). We used the average percent
correct across the CALS-I subtests to predict reading compre-
hension among DHH students for the present study.
Results
Principal Components Analysis
We conducted Principal Components Analyses (PCA) to examine
the internal structure of both the CALS-I (Uccelli et al., 2015) and
the ASLAI (Hoffmeister, et al., 2014). We used Cronbachs alpha
internal consistency measure as the estimate of reliability. All of
the CALS-I task-specic scores loaded positively onto a rst prin-
cipal component, which explained a high percentage (62%) of the
variation (see Tables 2 and 3 for PCA results). With only one
eigenvalue greater than one and a rst eigenvector with similar
values across each of the CALS-I subtests, we proceeded assum-
ing that the CALS-I is sufciently unidimensional for this popula-
tion. Because the eigenvector values are roughly equal, we used
the unweighted average of CALS-I for regression analysis.
The PCA conducted with the ASLAI yielded similar results.
Initially, there were two potentially substantial dimensions
indicated by the scree plot. While there was one principal com-
ponent with an eigenvalue of 3.82, a second component had an
eigenvalue of just over 1.0. Further exploration of the
 J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 63

Table 2. PCA results for the CALS-I, the ASLAI, and the ASLAI without syntax (n = 41)

Proportion of subtest variance accounted

Number of subtests Number of itemsa Subtest-level reliability for by the rst principal component 1

CALS-I 7 59 0.89 0.62

ASLAI 7 0.89 0.64
ASLAI without Syntax 6 0.90 0.75

a
Number of items was not available for the ASLAI.

Table 3. PCA loadings for the CALS-I, the ASLAI, and the ASLAI without syntax (n = 41)

Eigenvector for the rst Eigenvector for the rst Eigenvector for the rst principal
principal component of principal component of ASLAI component of ASLAI without
CALS-I subtests CALS-I ASLAI subtests with syntax syntax

Connecting Ideas 0.41 Analogies 0.39 0.40

Tracking Themes 0.42 Antonyms 0.39 0.41
Organizing Ideas 0.40 Plurals 0.33 0.33
Breaking Words 0.43 Syntax 0.17
Identifying Denitions 0.35 Synonyms 0.42 0.44
Sure or Unsure? 0.36 Difcult 0.43 0.44
Vocabulary
Understanding 0.37 Vocabulary in 0.43 0.42
Responses Sentences

eigenvectors revealed that the dominant contributor to this sec-
ond composite was a single subtest, ASL Syntax.
The ASL Syntax subtest of the ASLAI displayed numerous
data anomalies. This subtest had an average score of only 11%
correct and a maximum score of under 50%. Almost half the
participants received a score of 0 on this subtest. Further exami-
nation revealed that many of the students in the present study
were administered an early version of the ASLAI that did not
include the syntax subtest, accounting for the anomalies in the
data. These results suggest that the Syntax subtest is acting as a
nuisance dimension in the ASLAI, so we conducted a PCA with
the ASL Syntax subtest removed from the data. Once this sub-
test was dropped, there was only one eigenvalue greater than
one with a high percentage (75%) of the variation explained.
Given the results of this PCA, we proceeded under the
assumption that the remaining subtests of the ASLAI were suf-
ciently unidimensional. Because the loadings of the remaining
subtests on the rst principal component were similar, we use
an unweighted average of the remaining subtests as the com-
posite score for ASLAI.
Summary Statistics
Table 4 displays the summary statistics of each variable, includ-
ing the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum
scores. In order to preserve statistical power, all demographic
and DHH control variables are reported as dichotomous vari-
ables, with amplication reported as either use of amplication
(hearing aids or cochlear implants, coded as 1) or no amplica-
tion (coded as 0), grade level reported as either enrolled in high
school (1) or not enrolled in high school (enrolled in middle
school; 0), and ethnicity reported as either white (1) or non-
white (0). Unfortunately, due to our small sample size we were
unable to explore race/ethnicity in more detail. Outside of
White and Latino/a, there were no more than a handful of stu-
dents (no more than three for the next largest group) who iden-
tied as another race/ethnicity. Thus, in order to preserve
statistical power, we dichotomized this variable as White/Non-
White. This is discussed in more detail in the Results. Similarly,
to preserve statistic power, students were dichotomized as
being enrolled in high school or not high school (middle
school). This was also necessary due to the small numbers of
students enrolled at each individual level. This variable failed to
achieve signicance in any models. Word reading uency was
reported as the raw score of number of words correctly identi-
ed. Two students were unable to complete the word reading
uency assessment due to their visual impairment.
In the word reading uency test, participants identied a
mean of 48.33 words correctly out of a total of 220 possible words.
This score equivalent ranges from the second percentile for a
hearing 11-year-old (6th grade) to the <1 percentile for a hearing
18-year-old (12th grade), suggesting that the students performed
below what would be expected given their age/grade. In the
CALS-I, participants earned an average percent correct score of
43.59. This is somewhat lower than the mean scores reported for
hearing students in grades 46, which range from 52 to 63 (Uccelli
et al, 2015). However, because spoken English only subtests of the
CALS-I were omitted in this administration, these scores are not
directly comparable. On the ASLAI, students earned an overall
average score of 63.12. Overall reading comprehension scores on
the SAT-HI for sites 1 and 2 averaged at a scaled score of 605.57
(approximately 3rd grade level, which is comparable to national-
level data on the reading performance of middle and high school
DHH students). Scaled scores on the SAT-HI can range from 300
(approximately the pre-kindergarten level) to 900 (post high
school level). The mean score decreased by fewer than two points
with the addition of the six students from site three whose MAP
scores were linked to SAT-HI scaled scores via grade level equiva-
lencies (603.63). We proceeded using the SAT-HI scores with
linked MAP scores as the reading comprehension outcome mea-
sure, accounting for all 41 students.
Prior to completing linear regression analysis to answer the
primary research questions of this study, we explored the pair-
wise correlations of the three major assessments of this study
 64 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1

Table 4. Summary statistics of demographic, control, predictor, and outcome variables

Mean school 1 Mean school 2 Mean school 3

Variable Observations Mean Standard deviation (n = 16) (n = 19) (n = 6)

High school 41 0.54 0.44 0.63 0.5

Female 41 0.58 0.56 0.53 0.83
White 41 0.51 0.63 0.37 0.67
Hearing parents 41 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.67
Amplication 41 0.66 0.44 0.89 0.50
Reading uency 39 48.33 26.10 59 41 42.67
CALS-I scores 41 43.59 22.20 49.36 39.53 41.05
ASLAI scores 41 63.12 19.29 72.5 58.16 58.83
SAT-HI scaled scores 35 605.57 53.03 625.56 588.74
MAP scaled scoresa 6 187.33 29.85 183.57
MAP scores converted to SAT-HI scaled scores 6 592.33 63.85 592.33
SAT-HI scaled scores with linked MAP scores 41 603.63 54.06 625.56 588.74 592.33

a
MAP scaled scores are Rasch Unit (RIT) scores before conversion to the SAT-HI scale.

Table 5. Pairwise correlations of the outcome and predictor assessment scores (n = 41)

TOSWRF ASLAI Mean CALS-I Mean SAT-HI with linked MAP scores

Fluency 1
ASLAI Mean 0.61*** (0.00) 1
CALS-I Mean 0.57*** (0.0002) 0.37* (0.02) 1
SAT-HI with linked MAP scores 0.56*** (0.0002) 0.71*** (0.00) 0.37* (0.02) 1

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

to determine their interrelationships. See Table 5 for the results
of this analysis and Figure 1 for a scatterplot of reading compre-
hension scores and CALS-I scores. The results of the pairwise
correlation analysis are that all assessment scores are signi-
cantly correlated with one another, though some outliers
appear to exist in the scatterplot of CALS-I scores with reading
comprehension scores.
In order to answer the research questions of this study, we t
linear regression models to examine the relationships between
the control, question, and outcome variables. The rst models
explored the CALS-I and ASLAI separately in order to better under-
stand the unique variance in reading comprehension outcomes
contributed by each assessment individually before including
them in a single model to address the nal research question.
Academic English Prociency and DHH
Students Reading Comprehension
Table 6 presents the results of the CALS-I linear regression mod-
els. We explored rst the relationships between the outcome
measure and socio-demographic variables in Model 1. In Model 2,
we added scores from the CALS-I, and then in Model 3, we
removed nonsignicant socio-demographic and DHH factors.
Finally, word reading uency was added in Model 4. Model 4 re-
vealed that the question predictor of CALS-I scores was not signif-
icant when controlling for word reading uency (P = 0.08). This
model obtained an R2 value of 0.46, indicating that 46% of the var-
iance in reading comprehension scores was explained by aca-
demic English prociency and the present socio-demographic
and DHH factors.
Across all models, race/ethnicity had a statistically signicant
association with reading comprehension scores, with students
who were white more likely to achieve higher reading compre-
hension scores than non-white students. No other demographic
or DHH variables were signicant. Scores on the CALS-I were also
predictive of reading comprehension scores initially (see Models
13), although this relationship was weaker when controlling for
word reading uency (see Model 4, P < 0.10). We also found word
reading uency to be a predictor of reading comprehension.
It stands to reason that students who have different levels of
reading uency will have different abilities to read and compre-
hend texts. In a study of hearing children, reading uency was
found to explain unique variance in reading comprehension
scores, indicating that more uent students were better able to
understand what they have read than less uent students (Kim,
Petscher & Foorman, 2015). This indicates that it was possible
that an interaction existed in the present data between CALS-I
scores and word reading uencyfor students with varying le-
vels of word reading uency, CALS-I scores may have a different
relationship with reading comprehension scores. This possibil-
ity was explored in Model 5 (see Table 6).
In this model, the interaction term of CALS-I scores and u-
ency was statistically signicant (P = 0.03). These results indi-
cate that for DHH students with high levels of uency, CALS-I
scores have less impact on their reading comprehension than
for those students with low levels of uency. Racial gaps per-
sisted on average for this population. Figure 2 presents the
interaction effects of uency and academic English prociency
on reading comprehension for white students. Non-white stu-
dents scores were identical, but 31 points lower.
In Figure 2, we see the interaction between word reading u-
ency and CALS-I scores at the rst (21), second (43) and third (64)
quartiles. It seems that at higher levels of decoding, the impact
of academic English prociency is weakerand vice versaat
higher levels of language prociency, the impact of decoding is
weaker. A recent study has found a similar interaction between
decoding and language comprehension on the outcome of read-
ing comprehension (Proctor, Harring & Silverman, 2015).
 J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 65

680

Fitted Reading Comprehension Score

CALS = 21 CALS =43 CALS = 64
660

640

620

600

580

560

540
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fluency Score
Figure 1. Scatterplot of CALS-I mean scores against SAT-HI scores (n = 41).
Figure 2. Differential effects of word reading uency and CALS-I scores on read-
ing comprehension among white participants from Model 5. Each line repre-
sents a quartile of academic English comprehension; CAL = 21 represents the
a rst quartile or 25th percentile, CALS = 43 represents the second quartile or 50th
Table 6. CALS-I predicting reading comprehension (n = 41)
percentile, and CALS = 64 represents the third quartile or 75th percentile (n=41).

Model Number M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Hearing parents 25.18 13.36 Table 7. ASLAI predicting reading comprehension (n = 41)a
High school 20.18 22.32
Parameter M6 M7 M8
Amplication 17.18 19.54
Female 20.75 17.39
Hearing Parents 11.21
White 40.64* 39.35* 44.62** 31.80* 30.93*
High School 6.31
CALS-I 0.72* 0.78* 0.59 1.90**
Amplication -6.26
CALS-I Fluency 0.02*
Female 4.18
Fluency 0.82** 1.75***
White 21.64 25.27* 25.61*
Intercept 593.27*** 554.64*** 546.72*** 522.82*** 474.56***
Fluency 0.31
R2 0.32 0.40 0.31 0.46 0.52
ASLAI 1.89*** 1.90*** 1.76***
a
Intercept 488.31*** 470.49*** 462.92***
Unstandardized regression coefcients: reading comprehension scale has a
R2 0.64 0.62 0.65
mean of 603.63 and standard deviation of 54.06.

P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
To further explore the CALS-I scores of participating stu-
dents, an exploratory item analysis was undertaken. This analy-
sis found a number of areas in which students may struggle.
The lowest average subtest score (34% correct across partici-
pants) was found in the rst task, Making Connections, which
required students to choose the appropriate connecting word
for two related ideas. However, students performed similarly in
task 8, Understanding Reponses (36% correct across partici-
pants). This task required students to choose the type of argu-
ment being made. Both of these subtests require advanced
knowledge of English vocabulary around academic language,
which may have been an impediment to students. Students
scored most highly on subtest 6, Identifying Denitions (64%
correct across participants). This task required students to iden-
tify from among denitions written in differing registers, which
was most academic in form. This suggests that these students
may recognize academic English when they see it, but still
struggle to produce or manipulate this type of language.
ASL Prociency and DHH Students Reading
Comprehension
To address the second research question, we underwent a simi-
lar process of model building. First, we added ASLAI scores to a
model with only demographic and DHH variables with reading
comprehension scores as the outcome measure. In Model 7
(Table 7), we retained only the signicant demographic and
a
Unstandardized regression coefcients: reading comprehension scale has a
mean of 603.63 and standard deviation of 54.06.
P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
DHH variables and added word reading uency to the nal
model. Table 6 presents the results of linear regression models
with ASLAI scores.
ASLAI scores remained statistically signicant and similar in
magnitude regardless of control variables included in the model
(P < 0.0001). Race/ethnicity continued to be the only demographic
or DHH variable that was statistically signicant (P = 0.03).
Unlike in the models including CALS-I scores, word reading
uency was not signicant. Please see Figure 3 for a display of
the relationships between ASLAI scores, race/ethnicity, and
reading comprehension.
The ASLAI scores account for more variance in reading com-
prehension than CALS-I as indicated by the R2 values. We chose
Model 8 (Table 7) as the nal model for this subquestion. These
results indicate that ASL prociency was a strong predictor of
reading comprehension above and beyond the contribution of
race/ethnicity and word reading uency. Similar to the CALS-I,
we tested for an interaction between ASL prociency as mea-
sured by scores on the ASLAI and word reading uency; this,
however, was not signicant (P = 0.64).
These initial models were built to examine the individual re-
lationships between CALS-I scores and ASLAI scores and the
outcome measure of reading comprehension, when controlling
for DHH and demographic variables, as well as for word reading
uency. These initial results indicated that there was a positive
 66 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1

relationship between CALS-I scores and reading comprehension
that may be moderated by word reading uency. Scores on the
ASLAI were highly predictive of reading comprehension scores.
Race/ethnicity continued to be a signicant predictor of reading
comprehension in the models that included the ASLAI.
for CALS-I scores. It is also possible that there is not a substan-
tively strong relationship between CALS-I scores and reading
comprehension in the presence of the competing variable.
Further research is necessary to untangle these complex
relationships.

Academic English Prociency as a Predictor of DHH Discussion

Students Reading Comprehension When Controlling for
ASL Prociency
From here, we moved to building the models that address the
nal research question for this study: Does English academic
language prociency account for unique variance in the reading
comprehension performance of secondary DHH students, after
controlling for socio-demographic factors, DHH factors, word
reading uency, and ASL prociency? As with the models above,
these were built incrementally.
The results from this analysis identied ASL prociency as a
statistically signicant predictor of reading comprehension for
this population of DHH students (P = 0.0000). Model 12 (Table 8)
explained 67% of the variance in reading comprehension scores
among the students in this sample. Race/ethnicity was a signi-
cant predictor of reading comprehension (P < 0.05), while word
reading uency was not signicant (P = 0.10).
Although CALS-I scores do have some predictive utility prior
to the inclusion of ASL prociency scores (see Models 15), they
do not retain signicance once ASLAI scores are included. For
this reason, Model 8 (see Table 7 and Figure 3) was selected as
the most parsimonious model for predicting the reading com-
prehension of DHH adolescent students. According to this
model, ASLAI scores and race/ethnicity were strong predictors
of reading comprehension among DHH students. However,
these results should be cautiously interpreted. The signicance
of academic English in prior research with hearing children
(Gritter, Beers & Knaus, 2013; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012), as well as
its signicance in models that do not include ASL prociency
(see Models 15), would suggest that academic English may be
an important factor in the reading comprehension of DHH stu-
dents, despite its exclusion from the nal model. It is possible
that the current sample size was not large enough to maintain
these results in the presence of ASL prociency and that a larger
sample size would have yielded statistically signicant results
640
Fitted Reading Comprehension Score
Individual Differences in Language and Reading: The
Role of Socio-demographic Characteristics
These ndings revealed considerable individual variability
among DHH students on a number of factors, including socio-
demographic characteristics as well as language and literacy
skills, such as word reading uency, reading comprehension,
academic English prociency, and ASL prociency. The variabil-
ity found in each of the above factors belies the need for a
nuanced, complex analysis on the range of factors that may
exert inuence over DHH readers literacy development. ASL
prociency, hearing status of parents, reading uency, aca-
demic English prociency, and race/ethnicity all seem to play a
role in the development of reading skills in DHH students.
Future research should take into account these essential factors
and examine their impact in more depth when considering how
to characterize the predictors of reading comprehension, as
well as the developmental literacy trajectories of DHH students.
The only socio-demographic variable that predicted reading
comprehension was race/ethnicity. Students who were white
tended to outperform students who were non-white in reading-
comprehension, ASL prociency, and academic English pro-
ciency. This nding is similar to other studies, which have
found differential performance between US white and non-
white hearing students in reading and other academic areas (for
example, see Rojas-LeBouef & Slate, 2012). Additionally, previ-
ous research specically with students who have disabilities
identied a signicant difference in achievement between white
and non-white students, as well as for those of higher versus
lower socioeconomic status (SES) (Wei, Lenz & Blackorby, 2013).
In this study, the mean reading comprehension score on the
SAT-HI for white students was 627.33 (approximately 4.4 grade-
level equivalent), while the mean reading comprehension score
for non-white students was 578.75 (approximately 2.3 grade-
level equivalent). However, in this sample a large majority of
white students reported having a family member in the home

White NonWhite
620 Table 8. CALS-I and ASLAIs prediction of reading comprehension
(n = 41)a
600
Parameter M9 M10 M11 M12
580
Hearing Parents 8.51
560 High School 4.25
Amplication 7.54
540 Female 4.10
White 22.20 25.30* 25.47* 25.62*
520
Fluency 0.29 0.82
CALS-I 0.21 0.26 0.18 0.89
500
CALS-I x Fluency 0.01
480 ASLAI 1.79*** 1.79*** 1.68*** 1.63***
20 40 60 80 Intercept 482.72*** 466.17*** 461.30*** 442.39***
R2 0.65 0.63 0.66 0.67
ASLAI
a
Unstandardized regression coefcients: reading comprehension scale has a
Figure 3. ASLAI scores predicting reading comprehension scores by race/ethnic- mean of 603.63 and standard deviation of 54.06.

ity from Model 8 (n = 41). P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

who was able to sign (89%) while less than half of non-white
students reported the same (43%). Furthermore, 100% of the
children who reported having deaf parents in this sample were
white. It is likely that the race/ethnicity variable is actually cap-
turing access to ASL in the home. Future research should collect
detailed data on the presence of a signing family member to
better understand this complex issue. It is also possible that the
assignment of students to the dichotomous white/non-white
categories is also capturing or partially capturing the effects of
SES, though we are unable to determine whether this is the case
with the current data. As in our society race/ethnicity tends to
be highly conated with SES, future research must collect more
detailed information on SES and ethnicity. Furthermore, more
specic data on DHH students language (ASL and English print)
environment and language history will be essential as categori-
cal socio-demographic indicators tend to be poor proxies for the
language learning and literacy practices that students have
experienced (Uccelli et al., 2015). Ideally, future research should
not only use a larger sample size but also should purposefully
sample from minority backgrounds in order to more fully
understand the relationship between reading comprehension
and race/ethnicity.
Academic English Prociency and Its Relationship with
Reading Comprehension
Previous research has found that academic English prociency
is an important predictor of reading comprehension among
hearing children (Gritter et al. 2013; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012;
Uccelli et al., 2014, 2015). One hypothesis explored in this study
was that such a relationship would also be found among DHH
middle and high school students. In this sample, academic
English prociency was found to be a statistically signicant
predictor of reading comprehension in regression models that
did not include ASL prociency. Furthermore, an interaction
between word reading uency and CALS-I scores was detected,
which revealed that the impact of academic English prociency
on reading comprehension was stronger for students at the
lower levels of word reading uency. This intriguing relation-
ship between word reading uency and academic English pro-
ciency calls for more research that will illuminate the extent to
which these two constructs and their interaction differ from
ndings in the context of hearing students reading develop-
ment. Proctor et al. (2015), in a study of bilingual English/
Spanish students, found no interaction between decoding and
language prociency for Spanish, a more transparent language,
but did nd an interaction between decoding and language pro-
ciency in English, a more opaque language. For DHH students
with limited or perhaps no access to the sounds of English,
English orthography may be considered fully opaque. A new
hypothesis emerges on the basis of the ndings from this study,
as well as those from Proctor et al. (2015): It might be the case
that whether decoding/uency and language prociency (both
knowledge of ASL and English print) interact as predictors of
reading comprehension is in part dependent on the ortho-
graphic opacity of the language. In more transparent orthogra-
phies, it is likely that once decoding is mastered, language
prociency becomes the key predictor of reading comprehen-
sion. In contrast, in an opaque orthography, higher levels of de-
coding are more intertwined with language prociency, as
decoding orthographically opaque words will be facilitated by
language prociency.
This warrants further exploration of whether classroom
attention to the academic English of texts and the translation
J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 67
impact of ASL (Hoffmeister & Caldwell Harris, 2014) and the
minimal role of phonological decoding (Mayberry, del Guidice, &
Lieberman, 2011) might support middle and high school stu-
dents as they develop the higher-order reading comprehension
skills necessary for secondary and post-secondary education.
The CALS-I assessment may be useful in guiding instruction in
skills that have been shown to be important for academic suc-
cess. The CALS construct offers a starting point in the effort to
delineate the universe of language skills relevant to the reading
comprehension for DHH students.
ASL Prociency as a Critical Predictor of Reading
Comprehension
Researchers in deaf education have found that students with a
strong language base in ASL will have stronger linguistic abili-
ties that allow them to understand and produce more advanced
written English (Bailes, 2001; Cummins, 2006; DeLana et al. 2007;
Singleton et al. 2004; Strong & Prinz, 1997). These results can be
interpreted in light of Cummins (1984) linguistic interdepen-
dence hypothesis, i.e., that children can draw upon their knowl-
edge of their rst language (L1) to support their linguistic
understanding of their second language (L2). For signing DHH
students, more advanced knowledge of their L1, ASL, seems to
support the development of skills in their L2, English.
The regression models that explored the impact of ASL on
reading comprehension revealed that stronger prociency in
ASL predicted higher reading comprehension scores. This con-
rms previous ndings noting the critical role of ASL prociency
(and other signed languages) in the reading comprehension of
bilingual DHH learners (DeLana et al. 2007; Herman, Ormel &
Knoors, 2010; Hoffmeister, 2000; Strong & Prinz 1997). The only
other signicant variable was race/ethnicity, such that non-
white students tended to display lower reading comprehension
scores than their white peers regardless of ASL skill.
ASL Prociency, Word Reading Fluency, and Academic
English Prociency as Predictors of Reading
Comprehension
In the exploration of all variables together, the nal model revealed
that when controlling for word reading uency and academic
English prociency, ASLAI scores were a strong predictor of reading
comprehension among the middle and high school DHH students
who participated in this study. Although we initially (Models 25)
found a statistically signicant effect of academic English pro-
ciency and word reading uency, neither of these variables
achieved signicance when controlling for ASL prociency.
This leaves the somewhat surprising circumstance of both
academic English and word reading uency failing to retain sig-
nicance in models that include ASL prociency. Extensive
research has identied both word reading uency and academic
English prociency to be important predictors of reading com-
prehension and other literacy skills among hearing children
(Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer & Faller, 2010; Gritter et al. 2013; Kieffer
& Lesaux, 2012; Uccelli et al. 2013). There are a number of plausi-
ble hypotheses to explain why the effects of ASL prociency
may override the inuences of word reading uency and aca-
demic English prociency in this sample. We will explore these
hypotheses in detail below.
The rst hypothesis is that academic English prociency and
word reading uency may impact reading comprehension dif-
ferently in subgroups of DHH students with different language
histories. Earlier onset of exposure to ASL would support typical
 68 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1
language and literacy development among this population,
meaning that students who were exposed to ASL from a young
age would be developmentally prepared to develop academic
English abilities. This hypothesis is supported by research
nding different language development trajectories for those
who develop ASL as a rst language early as compared to those
who develop ASL as a rst language late (Mayberry 2007;
Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2008). As ASL prociency is predictive
of literacy skills (Bailes, 2001; Cummins, 2006; DeLana et al.
2007; Hoffmeister, 2000; Singleton et al. 2004; Strong & Prinz,
1997) as well as other areas such as mathematics ability (Kritzer,
2009) and psychological development (Schick, de Villiers, de
Villiers & Hoffmeister, 2007), ASL prociency may serve as a foun-
dation for the development of overall academic skills. Thus, it
would seem feasible that earlier ASL exposure would support
academic English development. Future research should examine
early and late age of ASL exposure in DHH students to test for
differential effects on academic English prociency and word
reading uency on their reading comprehension.
The second hypothesis is related to the instruments used in
this study. The reading comprehension tests used as the outcome
measures included more narrative than expository passages.
This could mean that these measures did not include enough
expository text features that would be associated with the skills
measured by the CALS-I, thus limiting the CALS-Is predictive
power. Future research should seek to assess reading compre-
hension of expository texts to determine whether a stronger rela-
tionship exists between expository reading comprehension and
the academic English features assessed by the CALS-I.
It is also possible that there are domains of academic
English prociency important for the reading comprehension of
DHH students that are not included in the CALS-I. The CALS-I
was developed for use with hearing, English-speaking students,
who may follow a qualitatively different path to literacy (see
Paul & Lee, 2010, for an introduction to the qualitatively similar/
different debate in the eld). Perhaps the CALS-I needs to be
expanded to capture a wider range of language domains rele-
vant to the English development of DHH students. For example,
an expanded version of the CALS-I that includes a measure of
academic vocabulary knowledge would be worth exploring.
Finally, it may also be the case that despite attempts to pres-
ent an assessment of English academic language that is accessi-
ble to DHH students in terms of readability through pilot testing
and teacher interviews, that reading ability confounded some
students ability to access the assessment. For DHH students
who communicate primarily or exclusively through ASL, it is dif-
cult to assess any type of English language ability using a
method that does not involve print English. It may be benecial
to develop an assessment of academic ASL to examine students
ability to understand and manipulate underlying academic lan-
guage structures in both ASL and English in order to begin to dis-
entangle reading ability versus academic language ability.
Although academic English prociency may be an important
skill for the reading comprehension of this population, it seems
that language skill in ASL for many of these students was the
overriding factor with the strongest predictive power over read-
ing comprehension outcomes. This suggests that for teachers
and students working in bilingual deaf education settings,
underlying language prociency may be at least as important as
English prociency for reading. The reading achievement of
DHH students may be mediated by their age of exposure to and
prociency in ASL. Although no research presently exists as far
as the authors are aware, perhaps exposing DHH students to
academic forms of ASL may also be a way to bridge this gap.
Conclusion
This study is the rst to assess the academic English prociency
of DHH students and examine this skillsets relationship with
reading comprehension. ASL prociency was consistently iden-
tied as the key predictor of reading comprehension. The con-
tribution of word reading uency and academic English
prociency was detected, though not consistent in all models. It
is necessary to explore the implications of these relationships
in larger samples and within and across subgroups of DHH stu-
dents. Future research should explore how to operationalize
academic English prociency and its relationship to word read-
ing uency, as well as the role academic English plays in read-
ing comprehension, alongside ASL prociency, for DHH
adolescents within a larger sample of participants. Although
the role of academic English uency for DHH students reading
comprehension remains unclear, the role of ASL appears to be
critical for bilingual DHH students.
Conicts of Interest
No conicts of interest were reported.
References
Bailes, C. N. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts: bridg-
ing paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1(2), 147174.
http://dx.doi/org/10.1353/sls/2001/0002.
Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further
specifying the language demands of school. In Bailey, A. L.
(Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to
the test. (pp. 103-156). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bartolome, L. I. (1998). The misteaching of academic discourses: the pol-
itics of language in the classroom. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Beal-Alvarez, J. S. (2016). Longitudinal receptive American Sign
Language skills across a diverse deaf student body. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(2), 200212. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/deafed/enw002.
Berent, G. P., Kelley, R. R., Schmitz, K. L., & Kenney, P. (2009).
Visual input enhancement via essay coding results in deaf
learners long-term retention of improved English grammati-
cal knowledge. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2),
190204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn032.
Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing
in American Sign Language: age of rst-language acquisition
effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 608635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01690960500139363.
Cawthon, S. W., Winton, S. M., Garberoglio, C. L., & Gobble, M. E.
(2011). The effects of American Sign Language as an assess-
ment and accommodation for students who are deaf or hard
of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2),
198211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq053.
Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. (2008). American Sign Language
syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less
skilled readers: bilingual and bimodal evidence for the lin-
guistic basis of reading, Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(3),
367388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S014271640808017X.
Charrow, V. R., & Fletcher, J. D. (1974). English as the second lan-
guage of deaf children. Developmental Psychology, 10(4),
463470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036711.
Chenhansa, S., & Schleppegrell, M. (1998). Linguistic features of
middle school environmental education texts. Environmental

Education Research, 4(1), 5366. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/
1350462980040104.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual education and special education: issues
in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill.
Cummins, J. (2006) The Relationship Between American Sign
Language Prociency and English Academic Development: A
Review of the Research [1]. Paper presented at the
Conference Challenges, Opportunities, and Choices in
Educating Minority Group Students, Norway. Retrieved from
http://www.gallaudet.edu/documents/cummins_asl-eng.pdf.
DeLana, M., Gentry, M. L., & Andrews, J. (2007). The efcacy of
ASL/English bilingual education: considering public schools.
American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 7387. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1353/aad.2007.0010.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding
the language demands of schooling: nouns in academic regis-
ters. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247273. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1.
Gritter, K., Beers, S., & Knaus, R. W. (2013). Teacher scaffolding
of academic language in an advanced placement U.S. history
class. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(5), 409418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.158.
Harcourt Educational Measurement (1996). Stanford Achievement
TestsHearing Impaired [SAT-HI]. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.
Hermans, D., Ormel, E., & Knoors, H. (2010). On the relation
between the signing and reading skills of deaf bilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13
(2), 187199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn009.
Hoffmeister, Robert J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and
reading comprehension in deaf children. In Chamberlain, C.,
Morford, J., & Mayberry, R., (Eds.) Language acquisition by eye.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoffmeister, R. J., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Acquiring
English as a second language via print: the task for deaf chil-
dren. Cognition, 132(2), 229242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2014.03.014.
Hoffmeister, R., Fish, S., Henner, J., Benedict, R.,Rosenburg, P.,
Conlin-Luippold, F., & Caldwell Harris, C. (2014). American Sign
Language Assessment Instrument (ASLAI- revision 3), Center for
the Study of Communication and the Deaf, Boston University,
Boston, MA.
Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Faller, S. E. (2010).
Effective academic vocabulary instruction in the urban middle
school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 514. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1598/RT-64.1.1.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Effects of academic language
instruction on relational and syntactic aspects of morpholog-
ical awareness for sixth graders from linguistically diverse
backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 519545.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/663299.
Kim, Y., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. (2015). The unique relation
of silent reading uency to end- of-year reading comprehen-
sion: understanding individual differences at the student,
classroom, and district levels. Reading & Writing, 28(1),
131150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9455-2.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and link-
ing. New York, NY: Springer.
Kritzer, K. L. (2009). Families with young deaf children and the
mediation of mathematically-based concepts within a natu-
ralistic environment. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(5),
474483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0067.
Kuntze, M., Golos, D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: broad-
ening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Language Studies,
14(2), 203224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sls/2014.0002.
J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 69
MacSweeney, M. Capek, C. M., Campbell, R., & Woll, B. (2008).
The signing brain: the neurobiology of sign language. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 432440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.
j.tics.2008.07.010.
Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). Test
of silent word reading uency [TOSWRF]. Austin, TX: ProEd.
Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: age of rst-
language acquisition effects on second-language learning.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 537549. http://dx.doi.org/10/
1017/S0142716407070294.
Mayberry, R. I., Del Guidice, A., & Lieberman, A. (2011). Reading
achievement in relation to phonological coding and aware-
ness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 16(12), 164188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
deafed/enq049.
Mayberry, R. I., & Locke, E. (2003). Age constraints on rst versus
second language acquisition: evidence for linguistic plastic-
ity and epigenesist. Brain and Language, 87(3), 369383. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00137-8.
Mayer, C. (2009). Issues in second language literacy education
with learners who are deaf. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 12(3), 325334. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2167/beb324/0.
Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence
theory support a bilingual-bicultural model of literacy educa-
tion for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
1(2), 93107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050802153368.
Miller, E. M., Lederberg, A. R., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2013).
Phonological awareness: explicit instruction for young deaf
and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 18(2), 206227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/
ens067.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). School Search.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov.
Northwest Education Association (2012). Measures of Academic
Progress (MAP) Overview. Retrieved from: http://legacysupport.
nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/les/resources/MAPBasics
Overview_0.pdf.
Novogrodsky, R., Caldwell Harris, C., Fish, S., & Hoffmeister, R.
(2014). The development of antonyms knowledge in
American Sign Language (ASL) and its relationship to reading
comprehension in English language learning. Language
Learning, 64(4), pp. 749770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.
12078.
Paul, P. V., & Lee, C. (2010). The qualitative similarity hypothesis.
American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 456462. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1353/aad.0.0125.
Proctor, C. P., Harring, J. R., & Silverman, R. D. (2015). Comparing
reading proles of biliterate Latino/a children in elementary
school: evidence from the simple view of reading. Miriada
Hispanica, 10, 5780. http://www.cpatrickproctor.com/uploads/
9/0/9/1/9091150/proctor_harring___silverman__2015_.pdf.
Rojas-LeBouef, A., & Slate, J. R. (2012). The achievement gap
between white and non-white students. Houston, TX: National
Council of Professors of Educational Administration.
Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007).
Language and theory of mind: a study of deaf children. Child
Development, 78(2), 376396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01004.x.
Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Schirmer, T. N.
(2012). Reread-adapt and answer-comprehend intervention
with deaf and hard of hearing readers: effects on uency and
reading achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(5),
469475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.1602.
 70 | Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, Vol. 22, No. 1
Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of
schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431459. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0.
Singleton, J. L., Morgan, D., DiGello, E., & Wiles, J., Rivers, R.
(2004). Vocabulary use by low, moderate, and high ASL-
procient writers compared to hearing ESL and monolingual
speakers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1),
86103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh011.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic lan-
guage. In Torrance, N. & Olson, D. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge hand-
book of literacy (pp. 112133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. M. (1997). A study of the relationship
between American Sign Language and English literacy. Jour-
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2(1), 3746. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014308.
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., & Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A.,
Sanchez, E. (2014). Core academic language skills: an expanded
operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-
relevant language prociency in preadolescent and adolescent
learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 10771109. http://dx/
doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400006X.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic
language: organization and stance in the persuasive writing
of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 3662.
doi:10.1177/0741088312469013.
Uccelli, P., Phillips-Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Ronfard,
S., & Meneses, A. (2013). General Academic Language
Prociency: A Key Predictor of Adolescents Reading
Comprehension. Presented at the Society of Research in Child
Development Biannual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Uccelli, P., Phillips-Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., &
Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: exploring cross-
disciplinary academic language prociency and its associa-
tion with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,
50(3), 337356. DOI: 10.1002/rrq.104.
Wei, X., Lenz, K. B., & Blackorby, J. (2013). Math growth trajecto-
ries of students with disabilities: disability category, gender,
racial, and socioeconomic status differences from ages 7 to
17. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 154165. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0741932512448253.
Wilbur, R. B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of
English and literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
5(1), 81104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.1.81.
 J. A. Scott and R. J. Hoffmeister | 71

Appendix A: Examples of CALS-I Subtest Items

Subtest Directions Item Example

Connecting First, read the sentences to yourself. Then, circle the answer *Kate wears sneakers, __________ Jim wears sandals.
Ideas that best completes the sentence. a. but
b. then
c. so
d. also
Tracking Read the sentences, then, pay attention to the underlined Water heats up more slowly than land. It also cools down
Themes words in the sentence. Finally, circle the option that refers more slowly than land.
to the same, person, thing, or event as the underlined In the above sentence, It refers to:
words in the sentence. a. water
b. heat
c. land
Organizing First, read each sentence. Then, write a number from 1 to 4 ____ One reason is that recess is healthy for kids
Texts next to each sentence. Begin with number 1 for the ____ Thats why I think it is important to try to save recess.
sentence that should be rst. ____ Some schools are getting rid of recess, but I think recess
is good for students.
____ For example, kids can do a lot of exercise during recess.
Breaking Change the word into a different form to complete the Driver Children are too young to ________.
Words sentence. Improvement My teacher wants my spelling to _______.
Identifying First, read each word and the three denitions Maria has Umbrella
Denitions written. Then, for each denition circle children if it A. An umbrella is what you use so you do not get wet in the
seems that it was written for children, or adults if it rain; it has cloth over a frame that you can fold.
seems that it was written for adults. Finally, from the three This was written for: CHILDREN or ADULTS
denitions choose the option that is BEST for a dictionary B. An umbrella is something that stops the rain and it has
for adults. some fabric over a type of frame that folds.
This was written for: CHILDREN or ADULTS
C. An umbrella is an object that provides protection from the
rain, made of fabric stretched over a folding frame.
This was written for: CHILDREN or ADULTS
Of the options above, choose the denition of umbrella that
was most likely written for adults.
Circle only one: A B C
Sure or Unsure First, read the situation below. Then, read what each person A group of friends is trying to gure out if the teacher is going
says. Finally, decide how sure each person is and check the to give a quiz. Some friends are very sure there will be a
appropriate box. quiz and some friends have doubts.
A. There will be a quiz tomorrow.
Yes Maybe Yes Maybe No No
B. For sure, we will not have a quiz tomorrow.
Yes Maybe Yes Maybe No No
Understanding First, read the newspapers idea. Then, read the sentence. Newspaper: Students need recess to have fun and relax at
Responses Finally, choose the option that best describes each school.
students sentence. Peter: Yes, at recess we have fun by playing many games like
tag, soccer, or basketball.
In the sentence above, Peter is giving
a. Reasons
b. Examples
c. Denitions
d. Exaggerations