Exceptionality

ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20

Relationships of English grammar and

communicative fluency to reading in deaf
adolescents

Donald F. Moores & Catherine Sweet

To cite this article: Donald F. Moores & Catherine Sweet (1990) Relationships of English
grammar and communicative fluency to reading in deaf adolescents, Exceptionality, 1:2,
97-106, DOI: 10.1080/09362839009524746

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362839009524746

Published online: 03 Sep 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hexc20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 28 June 2016, At: 09:08
 Exceptionality (1990) 1:97-106 FXCEPTTONALITY
© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Relationships of English Grammar and Communicative

Fluency to Reading in Deaf Adolescents
Donald F. Moores and Catherine Sweet
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

3606 KD ES, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Ave., N.E. Washington, DC 20002, USA

Abstract. We studied two groups of congenitally deaf students 16 to 18 years of age:

one group consisted of deaf children of deaf parents and the second group consisted of
deaf children of hearing parents. There were 65 subjects in each group. We studied the
relationships of the dependent variable of reading with three measures of communica-
tive fluency and two measures of English grammar/structure. For both groups there
were high correlations between reading and the two measures of English grammar/
structure; the Test of Syntactic Abilities and the Signed English Morphology Tests.
Correlations ranged from .55 to .70, indicating that both tests are high predictive of
reading for deaf adolescents. Moderate (.30 and .42), although statistically significant,
correlations were found between reading and oral and manual language proficiency
interviews for both groups. Fluency in American Sign Language (ASL), as measured by
an ASL language proficiency interview, was not correlated with reading for either
group. The reading/ASL correlation was .06 for deaf children of deaf parents and .04
for deaf children of hearing parents.

Since 1975 there has been a virtual revolution in the modes of communication
used to instruct deaf children. Prior to that time, education of the deaf followed
a predominantly "oral-only" system in which communication relied on speech,
speech reading, and use of residual hearing, with no use of finger spelling,
manual codes on English, or American Sign Language (ASL) allowed. The
impetus for change came from a number of sources, including the perceived
failure of oral-only preschool programs, very low oral skills and academic
achievement of graduates of programs for the deaf, and the apparent superior-
ity in English and academic achievement of a subgroup of approximately 4% of
the deaf school-age population—those with deaf parents who signed to them
from birth (Moores, 1987; Stedt & Moores, in press).
Throughout the 1970s education of the deaf shifted from predominantly
oral-only to mixed use of oral and manual instruction (Jordan, Gustason, &

This research was supported by the National Institute on Neurological and Communicative Disor-
ders and Stroke Contract NO1-N5-4-2365 to the senior author.
 98 Moores and Sweet

Rosen, 1979). The percentage of deaf children taught using manual communica-
tion was somewhat stable at around 65% through the 1980s (Jordan & Karch-
mer, 1986; Moores, 1987; Woodward, Allen, & Schildroth, 1985). Although the
term "total communication" is used for oral/manual modes of instruction,
there is some variation from program to program. The most common type of
this instruction involves an English-based sign system developed for use in
combination with spoken English. The most widely used English-based sys-
tems are Signing Exact English (Gustason, 1983; Gustason, Pfetzing, & Za-
wolkow, 1972) and Signed English (Bornstein, Saulnier, & Hamilton, 1972-84).
At present, ASL is not a major instrument of instruction. In a random
survey of 1,760 teachers of the deaf, Woodward et al. (1985) found that 1,187
(67.5%) used an English-based signing system, usually in combination with
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

speech and 6 (0.3%) used ASL. Of the 117 deaf teachers in the survey, 112
reported that they used an English-based signing system in class. Recently,
there has been growing interest in the educational use of ASL. Hoffmeister (in
press) has developed a strong rationale for its use and has proposed procedures
for training hearing parents in principles of ASL and for its introduction into
classrooms.
Most research on the effects of total communication instruction has con-
centrated on the preschool and elementary years. The results indicated supe-
rior performance in academic achievement and English fluency to comparable
children educated through oral-only instruction, with no differences in expres-
sive and receptive oral communication abilities (Chasen & Zuckerman, 1976;
Delaney, Stuckless, & Walter, 1984; Moores, 1985). In a review of 12 research
investigations of early intervention programs for the deaf, Goppold (1988) re-
ported that nine favored total communication/ early intervention before the age
of 2 years, one supported early intervention in general, and two reported that
early oral-only intervention did not raise academic achievement above that of
orally educated peers who experienced no preschool training.
In spite of the benefits of total communication, there still remains a signifi-
cant gap between the academic achievement and English language skills of deaf
students and the general hearing American school-age population (Allen, 1986).
Although there has been progress, large numbers of deaf students still lack
basic academic skills and possess inadequate mastery of English.
The present study is part of a three-year investigation of factors predictive
of literacy in two groups of deaf adolescents who had been taught in total
communication programs throughout their education (Moores & Sweet, in
press; Moores et al. 1987). Sixty-five had deaf parents and 63 had hearing
parents. Because of different demographic characteristics—and funding stipu-
lations—we did not compare achievement between the two groups but rather
investigated relationships between literacy and a wide array of factors includ-
ing hearing loss; family characteristics; verbal and performance measures of
intelligence; knowledge of English grammar; and person-to-person communi-
cation fluency in ASL, English-based sign, and oral-aural modalities. The com-
plete test battery required 10-13 hours of individual and group testing per
subject.
 Reading in Deaf Adolescents 99

We investigated the relationships between reading skills of each group of

subjects with three measures of person-to-person communicative fluency and
with a receptive test of signed English morphology. Language proficiency inter-
view (LPI) procedures in ASL, English-based sign, and oral-only modalities
provided the measures of person-to-person communicative fluency.
A limitation of the study is the restriction of both samples to students at
residential schools for the deaf. Because residential schools tended to adopt
total communication somewhat earlier than public school programs, there were
few public school subjects available who had been taught total communication
from preschool through high school. It should be possible to collect comparable
information on such children within the next few years.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

Method
Subjects
A total of 130 subjects (65 with deaf parents and 65 with hearing parents)
participated in this investigation. Subjects consisted of students from 16-0 to
18-0 years of age with hearing losses of 85 dB or greater across the speech
range and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Performance IQ scores of 80 or
above. Subjects had no identified disabilities in addition to their hearing loss
and had been enrolled in total communication programs from age four or youn-
ger. We drew the deaf children of deaf parents from nine residential schools for
the deaf across the United States and the deaf children of hearing parents from
five of those schools. The average age of the deaf parent sample was 16 years, 7
months, with average hearing losses across the speech range of 104 dB in the
left ear and 105 dB in the right ear. Approximately 12% (8 of 65) were of
minority status. The average age of the hearing parent sample was 17 years
with average three-frequency hearing losses of 105 dB in the left ear and 106 dB
in the right ear. Approximately 17% (11 of 65) were of minority status. For the
deaf children of deaf parent group, 31 subjects were male and 34 were female;
in the hearing parent group there were 36 males and 29 females.

Instruments

In the major study, we identified two separate dependent variables—reading

and writing—and seven categories of independent variables, with 31 measures.
The categories were: (1) related measures of achievement, (2) English gram-
mar/structure, (3) communicative fluency, (4) measures of verbal cognitive
functioning, (5) measures of performance cognitive functioning, (6) speech pro-
duction, and (7) hearing. Test development and pilot testing occurred over a
two-year period. For purposes of this study, we shall deal with the dependent
variable of reading and its relationships with three measures of communicative
fluency and two measures of English grammar/structure. Complete details are
in Moores et al. (1987).
 100 Moores and Sweet

Dependent Measures—Reading
We used seven separate measures of reading:

1. Stanford Achievement Test—1982: Hearing Impaired Battery (SAT-HI)

Reading Comprehension Subtest. The SAT-HI is group-administered and
norms exist for both deaf and hearing samples.
2. Narrative Retelling. Subjects read a story, Space Pet, rated at fourth grade
level of difficulty, and then retold it. The tester presented all directions
individually employing the sign system in use at the particular school and
the retelling was videotaped. Scoring was based on a propositional analysis,
refined in the test development and pilot testing phase, which produced a
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

numerical score. Interrater reliability during pilot testing was .99.

3. Narrative Comprehension.' Following the narrative retelling, the examiner
presented the subject in order with eight printed questions regarding the
story, Space Pet. Responses were videotaped and scored on a correct/
incorrect basis. Again, interrater reliability was computed at .99.
4. Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), Reading Comprehension
Subtest. The PIAT is a screening measure for children 5.6 to 18.0 years.
There are no norms for deaf children. The Reading Comprehension Subtest
consists of 68 sentences with a multiple-choice response format.
5. Cloze Procedures: Semantic/Syntactic Acceptability. Cloze procedures
have been used extensively with deaf students. In this study we explored
several narratives of varying difficulty as well as alternate scoring proce-
dures involving verbatim, syntactically correct, and semantically correct
responses. For the study we selected the story, Devil's Trick, which was
calculated at the lOth-grade level of difficulty. After the first three para-
graphs, we deleted each fifth word until there was a total of 50 deletions.
The text was group administered, with subjects directed to fill in the blanks.
Based on pilot testing and a scoring system previously used by Ewoldt
(1981) and Kelly and Ewoldt (1984), we employed procedures from miscue
analysis using syntactic and semantic acceptability as the criteria.
6/7. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Speed and Accuracy Subtest. The Gates-
MacGinitie Test is group-administered, and it is designed to cover grades
K through 12. The speed and accuracy subtest is a timed four-minute test
that yields number of items attempted (speed) and number of items correct
(accuracy).

Independent Measures—English Grammar!Structure

We shall present two measures of English grammar/structure here. One is
based on a print presentation and one on a signed presentation.

1. Test of Syntactic Abilities (TSA), Screening Test. The TSA is a paper and
pencil test of understanding of nine of the major syntactic structures of
English with norms for deaf students from 10 to 19 years of age. The screen-
ing test, untimed and group-administered, has a pool of 120 items, each with
 Reading in Deaf Adolescents 101

a four-alternative multiple-choice task. Scores are reported as percentage

correct.
2. Manual English Morphology Test. This test assesses understanding of En-
glish grammar, particularly inflectional morphology under sign conditions.
Based on investigations by Gonter (1986) on the development of imitation,
comprehension, and production measures of English-based signing, the
Manual English Morphology test is individually administered and consists of
a total of 44 sentences presented through videotape by a deaf signer using
simultaneous oral manual communication. The subject views each sentence
and repeats it in sign. We videotaped responses and raters proficient in
English-based sign scored results. A total correct score of 173 was possible,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

with 77 bound morphemes and 96 function words targeted by the test.

Independent Measures—Communicative Fluency

In order to obtain measures of communicative fluency under oral-only ASL and
English-based signing conditions, we developed Language Proficiency Inter-
view (LPI) procedures based upon modifications originally proposed by Fran-
cis (1980).
A different interviewer was used for each variety. A deaf native signer
conducted the ASL assessment. Two hearing researchers skilled in manual
codes on English assessed English-based signing with voice. A hearing re-
searcher trained as an oral teacher of the deaf conducted the oral interviews.
Each interview required approximately 15 minutes and was videotaped. Scor-
ing was on a five-point basis, with 0 representing no useful proficiency and 4
representing full proficiency.

Analysis

Because of different demographic characteristics, we analyzed performance of

the deaf parent and hearing parent groups separately. For each group, we
obtained factor loadings, in standard scores, for the six measures of reading.
We used the factor loadings to generate factor scores. We then individually
correlated the two English grammar/structure scores and the three LPI scores
for each group with the dependent reading outcome variable for that group in
order to establish covariation.

Results

Reading outcome measures are presented in Table 1. For the study we tried to
obtain as wide a range of reading achievement within each group as possible.
Grade equivalent scores vary from second grade to above grade placement,
i.e., grades 12 and 13, suggesting we were successful. Examination of scores on
Narrative Retelling, Narrative Comprehension, and Cloze procedures reveals a
correspondingly great spread in achievement.
 102 Moores and Sweet

Table 1. Reading outcome measures

Measure Format Mean St. dev. Range
Deaf children of deaf parents

SAT—Reading Comprehension scaled score 656.0 50.5 495-779

Narrative Retelling propositional
count 127.0 119.9 0-530
Narrative Comprehension number correct 3.6 2.1 0-7
PIAT—Reading Comprehension grade score 6.8 2.6 2.1-13.0
Cloze Test percentage 35.0 25.4 0-94
Gates-Speed grade score 9.8 2.5 4.3-12.3
Gates-Accuracy grade score 7.8 2.9 2.1-12.4
Deaf children of hearing parents
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

SAT—Reading Comprehension scaled score 644.4 62.23 580-827

Narrative Retelling propositional
count 83.7 81.2 0-290
Narrative Comprehension number correct 2.6 1.7 0-7
PIAT—Reading Comprehen-
sion grade score 6.0 2.6 2.8-13.0
Cloze Test percentage 27.4 20.0 8-88
Gates-Speed grade score 7.5 2.8 3.2-12.3
Gates-Accuracy grade score 6.0 2.3 2.5-12.4

Table 2. Factor loadings for reading

Factor loading
Deaf children Deaf children
of of
Measure deaf parents hearing parents

SAT—Reading Comprehension .762 .760

Narrative Retelling .719 .747
Narrative Comprehension .826 .842
PIAT—Reading Comprehension .746 .746
Cloze Test .858 .878
Gates-Speed .803 .877
Gates-Accuracy .481 .632

Table 2 presents the factor loadings for the measures of reading for each
group. For the children of deaf parents, the Cloze score (.858) and Narrative
Comprehension (.826) have the highest factor loading for reading. For the
children of hearing parents, the Cloze test (.878), the Gates Speed score (.877),
and Narrative Comprehension (.842) have the highest factor loadings.
The scores of English grammar/structure (see Table 3) show a range for
both the TSA and English Morphology test. As expected, the ASL LPI for
subjects with deaf parents shows relatively little variation because of the high
level of ASL fluency for this group. For both groups, the Oral LPI shows
greater diversity, although mean scores fall within the Limited to Basic Practi-
cal Proficiency range.
 Reading in Deaf Adolescents 103

Table 3. Measures of English grammar/structure and communicative fluency

Deaf children Deaf children
of of
deaf parents hearing parents
Test Reporting format Mean St. dev. Range Mean St. dev. Range
English grammar/structure
Test of Syntactic Abilities percentage 82.46 16.23 21-100 78.11 15.78 35-98
Manual Morphology Test number correct 116.81 34.46 36-167 100.60 33.16 25-157
Communicative fluency-language proficiency interviews
American Sign Language 0-4 3.79 0.48 2-4 3.31 0.75 2-4
English-based Signing 0-4 2.97 0.80 2-4 2.85 0.76 2-4
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

Oral 0-4 1.30 1.48 0-4 1.52 1.39 0-4

Table 4. Bivariate correlations of measures with factor score for reading

Deaf children Deaf children
of of
deaf parents hearing parents
Measure Correlation Probability Correlation Probability
English grammar/structure
TSA .70 .001 .70 .001
Sign morphology .64 .001 .55 .001
Communicative fluency
ASL , -.06 .320 .04 .402
English-based sign .41 .001 .41 .003
Oral .30 .009 .42 .002

The pattern of relationships between reading and the independent mea-

sures is consistent across both groups (see Table 4). For each group, there are
high correlations (rs = .55 and greater) between the TSA and Sign Morphology
tests with reading. The English-based Sign and Oral LPIs show moderate cor-
relations (rs = .30 to .42). There is no functional correlation between reading
and ASL ratings for either the deaf parent (r = —.06) or hearing parent (r = .04)
group.

Discussion and Conclusions

The high correlations between measures of English grammar/structure and

reading are the most notable aspects of the findings. The Test of Syntactic
Abilities (TSA) and the Sign Morphology Test are highly predictive of reading
achievement in deaf adolescents taught through total communication, regard-
less of hearing status of parents. The TSA is a paper and pencil task and the
Sign Morphology Test requires imitation of videotaped signed English sen-
tences. Despite the different task demands, each test was an effective predictor
 104 Moores and Sweet

of reading. We expected the high correlations of the TSA with reading because
its format was similar to most of the reading measures and because this is
consistent with previous reports. The Sign Morphology Test, however, re-
quired a "through-the-air" videotaped presentation, and its high correlations
with reading suggest that it taps abilities highly related to English reading skills.
The results of the Sign Morphology Test take on added importance in view
of the moderate, although statistically significant, correlations between the
English Language Proficiency Interviews and reading for both groups. Correla-
tion with reading of .30 for the Oral LPI and .41 for the English-based Sign LPI
for the deaf children of deaf parents and .42 and .41, respectively, for the deaf
children of hearing parents indicate that each has predictive power for reading
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

achievement of deaf adolescents taught through total communication, but of a

lower level of predictive power than the TSA or Sign Morphology Test. In
reviewing these results, Bornstein (in press) has argued that, in the case of the
Sign Morphology Test, being able merely to recognize and imitate manual
English forms is more highly related to English literacy than the fluency dis-
played in an interview.
The different nature of English, in any form, and ASL may explain the lack
of correlation between the ASL LPI and reading for both groups. ASL is a
separate language with lexical, syntactic, morphological, and pragmatic as-
pects different from English. Although there may be a general language ability
in deaf adolescents, this study found no evidence of a relationship between
ASL and English. The low correlations between ASL and reading for deaf
children of deaf parents may be due in part to a limited range of fluency—all
subjects had some competence. However, there was also a low correlation
between ASL and reading for deaf children of hearing parents, who exhibited
greater variation in scores.
Mayberry (1989) has reported somewhat different findings for younger deaf
children (yrs 7-15) attending public school day classes. She reported that both
ASL and manually coded English (MCE) comprehension both predict reading
comprehension, as measured by the SAT-HI Reading Comprehension subtest.
Mayberry assessed ASL and MCE comprehension through videotaped stories,
followed by questions. Perhaps it is the format of the task that accounts for the
difference. If so, this is consistent with Bornstein's contention that communi-
cative fluency displayed in an interview is not highly related to English reading
achievement.
There is also the fact that the deaf 16- to 18-year-old residential school
students in this study developed in environments quite different from those of
the 7 to 15 year olds in Mayberry's study. For example, we found that both deaf
children of deaf parents and deaf children of hearing parents were rated higher
on the average on ASL LPIs than on English-based sign LPIs. Although we
must view this result with caution because the interviewers were different for
the two LPIs, the results agree with the observations of the investigators. Deaf
students in residential schools typically have more exposure during out-of-class
hours to ASL than to signed English systems. Mayberry found that the 23 deaf
children of deaf parents in her study, all of whom attended public school day
classes, showed comparable comprehension for ASL and MCE, but that the 24
 Reading in Deaf Adolescents 105

deaf children of hearing parents comprehended MCE significantly better than

ASL. Further, deaf children of deaf parents outperformed deaf children of
hearing parents on ASL comprehension but not MCE comprehension. The
exposure to ASL of deaf children of hearing parents in public school classes
clearly is very limited. The generalization of results of the present study to
nonresidential school populations should be made with caution.

References

Allen, T.E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016

1983. In A.N. Schildroth & M.A. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 139-160).
New York: College-Hill Press
Bornstein, H. (in press). Overview. In H. Bornstein (Ed.), Manual communication in American
education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K., & Hamilton, L. (1972-84). The signed English series. Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press
Chasen, B., & Zuckerman, W. (1976, Aug.). The effects of total communication and oralism on
deaf third-grade "Rubella' students. American Annals of the Deaf, 121, 394-404
Delaney, M., Stuckless, E.R., & Walter, G.G. (1984, Dec). Total communication effects—A
longitudinal study of a school for the deaf in transition. American Annals of the Deaf, 129,
481-486
Ewoldt, C. (1981, Jan.). A psycholinguistic description of selected deaf children reading in sign
language. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 38-59
Francis, J. (1980). The evaluation of language proficiency. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
School of Communication
Gonter, M. (1986, Aug.). Longitudinal effects of manual English instruction on deaf children's
morphological skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 101-128
Goppold, L. (1988, Oct.). Early education for preschool deaf children: The longitudinal effects
relative to program methodology. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 285-288
Gustason, G. (1983). Teaching and learning signing exact English: An idea book. Rossmoor, CA:
Modern Signs Press
Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., & Zawolkow, W. (1972). Signing exact English. Rossmoor, CA:
Modern Signs Press
Hoffmeister, R. (in press). ASL and its' implications for education. In H. Bornstein (Ed.), Manual
communication in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Jordan, I.K. Gustason, G., & Rosen, R. (1979, June). An update on communication trends in
programs for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 124, 350-357
Jordan, I.K., & Karchmer, M.A. (1986). Patterns of sign use among hearing impaired students. In
A.N. Schilbroth & M.A. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 125-138). Boston:
College-Hill Press
Kelly, L., & Ewoldt, C. (1984, Jan.). Interpreting nonverbatim cloze responses to evaluate pro-
gram success and diagnose student needs for reading instruction. American Annals of the
Deaf, 129, 45-51
Mayberry, R. (1989, April). Deaf children's reading comprehension in relation to sign language
structure and input. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Kansas City
Moores, D.F. (1985). Early intervention programs for hearing impaired children: A longitudinal
assessment. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (pp. 159-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Moores, D.F. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles and practices. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Moores, D.F., Kluwin, T.N., Johnson, R., Cox, P., Blennerhasset, L., Kelly, L., Sweet, C., &
Fields, L. (1987). Factors predictive of literacy in deaf adolescents: Final Report. Washing-
ton, DC: Gallaudet University Center for Studies in Education and Human Development
 106 Moores and Sweet

Moores, D.F., & Sweet, C. (in press). Factors predictive of school achievement. In D.F. Moores &
K. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Research on educational and developmental aspects of deaf-
ness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Stedt, J.D., & Moores, D.F. (in press). Manual codes on English and American Sign Language:
Historical perspectives and current realities. In H. Bomstein (Ed.), Manual communication
in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Woodward, J., Allen, T., & Schildroth, A.N. (1985). Teachers and deaf children: An ethnography
of classroom communication. In S. Delancey & R. Tomlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the First
Pacific Coast Conference on Linguistics (pp. 479-493). Eugene: University of Oregon Press
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 09:08 28 June 2016