Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preliminary Adaptation of The Psychoeducation
Preliminary Adaptation of The Psychoeducation
HEARING CHILDREN
A Dissertation
W
The PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium
Doctor of Psychology
PR
By
Audrey Cortesi
July, 2019
1
PRELIMINARY ADAPTATION OF THE PSYCHOEDUCATION PORTION OF MODULAR
HEARING CHILDREN
Audrey Cortesi
The PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium, Palo Alto University, 2019
D/deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) individuals are more vulnerable to mental health concerns
than the hearing population (e.g., Stevenson, Kreppner, Pimperton, Worsfold, & Kennedy, 2015)
and DHH children are 1.5 – 2 times more likely to experience mental health issues than hearing
W
youth (Hindley, 2005). Internalizing disorders, and anxiety disorders in particular, have been
IE
identified as the most prevalent diagnosis among DHH youth (e.g., Hindley, Hill, McGuigan, &
Kitson, 1994). Despite high rates of mental health issues among DHH children, access to mental
EV
health care is severely limited due to cultural and linguistic barriers (e.g., Alexander, Ladd, &
Powell, 2012; Pollard, 1994) and further complicated by a paucity of treatments that have been
adapted for DHH populations. To address this need, this study created an adapted therapy
PR
resource to be used with DHH youth with anxiety. The modular direct service model entitled
Managing and Adapting Practice (MAP) was selected as the basis for adaptation due to the
increased utilization (e.g., Friedberg, 2017), efficacy (e.g., Weisz et al., 2012; Chorpita, et al.,
2017), and flexibility (e.g., facilitates linguistic and cultural adaptation) of modular approaches.
Given the known benefits of psychoeducation (Houghton & Saxon, 2007), particularly as a form
of early intervention for youth (Hirshfeld-Becker & Biederman, 2002), this study adapted steps
1–6 of the MAP practice guide, “psychoeducation” for childhood anxiety. The target population
for the adaptation was DHH children ages 7–12. An expert advisory panel, including Deaf
2
community members, was created to assist with the adaptation of materials both culturally and
linguistically. The practice guide was adapted into a video format and provided in American
Sign Language (ASL) with closed captioning and English voiceover, to ensure full accessibility.
This adapted guide was designed to serve as an adjunct resource to augment treatment. Financial
and time constraints limited study scope to focus on adapting six of the 12 steps of the MAP
practice guide and precluded the evaluation of the adapted resource. Next steps include
comprehensive evaluation of the adapted resource, adaptation of the additional six steps, and
W
IE
EV
PR
3
W
© Copyright 2019
IE by
Audrey Cortesi
EV
All Rights Reserved
PR
4
Preliminary Adaptation of the Psychoeducation Portion of Modular Therapy for Childhood
This dissertation by Audrey Cortesi, directed and approved by the candidate’s committee, has
been accepted and approved by the Faculty of The PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium, Palo Alto
DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
W
July 29, 2019
IE Risa Dickson, Ph.D.
Vice President for Academic Affairs
EV
Dissertation Committee:
PR
____________________________________
Elizabeth Reichert, Ph.D.
Chair
____________________________________
Yan Leykin, Ph.D.
Committee Member
____________________________________
Nicole Starace, Ph.D.
Committee Member
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER
I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 11
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11
Deaf Population and Mental Health Needs Among Youth ....................................................... 13
Introduction to the Population ............................................................................................ 13
Vulnerability to Mental Health Concerns............................................................................ 15
W
Dearth of Competent Providers and Appropriate Resources ................................................ 19
Current Mental Health Resources ....................................................................................... 27
PCIT for Deaf families ................................................................................................ 28
IE
CBT for D/deaf and hearing adults with language and learning challenges .................. 30
DBT for Deaf adults .................................................................................................... 31
EV
6
Expert Advisory Panel – First meeting......................................................................... 55
Expert Advisory Panel – Second meeting .................................................................... 56
Phase 4: Script Creation ..................................................................................................... 57
Phase 5: Video Creation ..................................................................................................... 58
Meeting with Editor..................................................................................................... 58
Video Filming ............................................................................................................. 58
Phase 6: Video Editing ....................................................................................................... 60
III. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 61
Overview ................................................................................................................................ 61
Adaptations ............................................................................................................................. 61
W
Broad Adaptations.............................................................................................................. 61
Visuals ........................................................................................................................ 62
IE
ASL............................................................................................................................. 62
Cultural ....................................................................................................................... 63
EV
Dialogic Teaching Style .............................................................................................. 64
Developmental and Cognitive ...................................................................................... 65
Intervention Specific Adaptations....................................................................................... 65
PR
7
Limitations to Application .................................................................................................. 88
Future Directions .................................................................................................................... 94
Completion of the Full Practice Guide ................................................................................ 94
Expansion to Other Treatments and Subpopulations ........................................................... 96
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 120
A. MAP Practice Guide – Child Anxiety Psychoeducation ...................................................... 120
B. Video Scripts with Blocking for MAP Steps 1–6 ................................................................ 121
W
IE
EV
PR
8
LIST OF TABLES
Page
W
IE
EV
PR
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
W
IE
EV
PR
10
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Numerous studies have demonstrated that D/deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) individuals
have higher rates of mental health concerns as compared to their hearing counterparts (e.g.,
Stevenson, Kreppner, Pimperton, Worsfold, & Kennedy, 2015; Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard,
2012; Fellinger, Holzinger, Sattle, Laucht, & Goldberg, 2009), including an increased
vulnerability to anxiety disorders in DHH youth (e.g., Hindley, Hill, McGuigan, & Kitson, 1994;
Roberts & Hindley, 1999). However, studies also show that DHH individuals have substantially
W
decreased access to care due to linguistic and cultural barriers (Alexander, Ladd, & Powell,
IE
2012; Pollard, 1994; Glickman, 1983, 1986; Heller, 1987; Sussman, 1989). In addition to
decreased access to standard care, services that have been adapted for DHH populations are rare.
EV
There are only a select few mental health treatments that have been adapted for DHH individuals
to date (O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008; Glickman, 2009b; Day, Costa, Previ, & Caverly, 2018), two
of which were created for adults and are not developmentally appropriate for DHH children. Due
PR
to high abuse rates of DHH children (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000) and our knowledge about the
positive impacts of preventative care and early intervention (Hirshfeld-Becker & Biederman,
2002), it is imperative that mental health resources are made available and accessible for the
treatment of DHH youth. Given the increased prevalence of anxiety disorders in DHH children,
the current study focused on the treatment of anxiety in DHH youth. Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy (CBT) has been identified as the gold standard for the treatment of childhood anxiety
disorders (e.g., Higa-McMillan, Francis, Rith-Najarian, & Chorpita, 2016; Wehry, Beesdo-
Baum, Hennelly, Connolly, & Strawn, 2015). However, despite the efficacy of CBT, a
11
significant portion of children with anxiety fail to achieve clinical levels of symptom reduction
(Kendall, Settipani, & Cummings, 2012). In order to address this issue and the pervasive science-
practice gap, the literature is trending toward modular approaches due to the inherent flexibility
and applicability of more transdiagnostic designs (e.g., Friedberg, 2017; Hersh, Metz, & Weisz,
2016; Kendall, Settipani, & Cummings, 2012). The rise of modular approaches offers a
promising new approach to treatment that may be particularly beneficial for culturally diverse
Modular designs have demonstrated efficacy in several studies (e.g., Weisz et al., 2012;
Chorpita, et al., 2017) and lend themselves well to linguistic and cultural adaptation due the
W
focus on specific interventions, techniques, and independent modules rather than the more
IE
traditional manualized approach, which is a cohesive, intradependent treatment protocol that
cannot be separated into component parts. There is a modular direct service model known as
EV
Managing and Adapting Practice (MAP) that identifies and compiles the common elements of
effective mental health interventions for a multitude of treatment targets (Chorpita & Daleiden,
2014; Chorpita, Daleiden, & Collins, 2014). The MAP system (Southam-Gerow et al., 2014) and
PR
counterparts of MAP (e.g. Modular Approach to Therapy for Children with Anxiety, Depression,
or Conduct Problems; MATCH; Chorpita & Weisz, 2009) have been shown to be particularly
effective for diverse youth in community settings, with promising results such as superior
efficacy over Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and other evidence-based treatment (EBT) manuals
(Chorpita et al., 2017; Weisz et al., 2012). The flexibility of MAP allows for considerable
cultural adaptation and integration of local cultural knowledge, without sacrificing fidelity to the
empirically supported interventions (Lyon et al., 2014). Presently, this effective treatment model
is not adapted for DHH youth, who are in great need of treatment that is both empirically
12
informed and culturally tailored. For a population with such a high rate of psychiatric concerns,
Given the demonstrated effectiveness of MAP and the ease at which it can be tailored,
adaptation for DHH community appears to be the natural next step to increase treatment access
for this population. Due to the barriers that make it challenging for DHH individuals to access
these services as they exist currently, linguistic and cultural adaptations were needed to ensure
interpretation into American Sign Language (ASL; Glickman, 2017; O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008;
Day et al., 2018), (b) information presented in video format (O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008; Day et
W
al., 2018), (c) increased utilization of visual aids (Glickman, 2017; O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008),
IE
(d) simplification of English terminology (O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008; Glickman, 2009b), (e) use
of dialogic as opposed to didactic teaching style (O’Hearn & Pollard, 2008; Glickman, 2009b),
EV
or (f) integration of culturally appropriate stories and metaphors (Glickman, 2017; O’Hearn &
Pollard, 2008; Day et al., 2018). Adaptation of MAP interventions specifically for DHH youth
could not only add to the current literature base but could also expand treatment access for the
PR
(NIDCD), approximately two to three of every 1,000 children born in the United States have a
detectable level of hearing loss in one or both ears. Furthermore, for individuals in the United
States who are age 12 and older, nearly one in five (48.1 million) have either unilateral or
bilateral hearing loss (Lin, Niparko, & Ferrucci, 2011). This significant percentage of Americans
13
comprises a unique subset of the population that is highly diverse (Byrne, 1998) across several
domains including but not limited to: level of hearing, age of onset, cause, utilization of assistive
(NAD), individuals who identify themselves as Deaf with a capitalized “D” are culturally Deaf,
meaning they are part of Deaf culture and share American Sign Language (ASL) as their
common language (NAD, 2018). The Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet
University states, “American Deaf culture centers on the use of ASL and identification and unity
with other people who are Deaf.” (Gallaudet University, 2015). Reagan (1995) discussed the
W
potential lack of understanding and appreciation for Deaf culture as he explained,
IE
The world of the Deaf remains a … hidden one for the vast majority of the hearing
population. Indeed, for most hearing people deafness is understood solely as a disabling
condition that involves an inability – specifically, the inability to function audiologically
as do “normal” people. However, for many Deaf people, deafness is defined not so much
EV
in terms of audiological issues, but rather, with respect to linguistic, social, and cultural
issues.
Benedict and Legg (2014) described the experience of being part of Deaf culture and a member
PR
of the Deaf community as a sense of belonging or a feeling of “home.” They discussed that there
is shared worldview experienced by many Deaf people that is celebrated within the community.
“Deaf people describe a sense of connection and a shared understanding of what it means to be a
deaf person that is felt almost immediately upon meeting another person who is deaf.” (Benedict
& Legg, 2014). The term “Deaf” is specifically differentiated from the label of “deaf” with a
lowercase “d.” The identification of deaf refers to “the audiological condition of not hearing”
(Padden & Humphries, 1988, p. 2) and to a group of individuals who “do not have access to the
knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people” (Padden &
Humphries, 1988, p. 2). Additionally, the NAD (2018) also specifies a third term, “hard of
14
hearing”. This term can be used to denote a person: 1) with a mild to moderate hearing loss, 2)
an individual who has chosen not to identify with the culturally Deaf community, or 3) both.
Individuals who are hard of hearing can join and participate in the Deaf community or they can
choose not to be associated with this cultural affiliation (NAD, 2018). Notably, the NAD
recognizes these three terms “Deaf”, “deaf”, and “hard of hearing” as most commonly accepted
and recommends the use of these terms instead of “deaf and dumb”, “deaf-mute”, and “hearing-
impaired” due to the associated negative connotations (NAD, 2018). As such, Deaf, deaf, and
hard of hearing (DHH) individuals will be referred to collectively as “DHH” hence forth in this
study. The term “D/deaf” will also be used to encapsulate all D/deaf individuals, culturally Deaf
W
and non-culturally deaf.
IE
With regard to diversity in communication methods, DHH individuals also have a variety
caregivers (Gravel and O’Gara, 2003). Gravel and O’Gara (2003) discuss the various
communication options available to DHH children that vary from spoken to signed modalities as
PR
well as combinations of the two such as spoken language with visual cues or signs. Within the
Deaf community, ASL is highly preferred and is utilized as the primary form of communication.
Additionally, DHH individuals vary linguistically in their proficiency with English (O’Hearn &
Pollard, 2008; Bochner & Walter, 2005; Bryne, 1998), which can impact their experience with
It is important to note that this unique, diverse portion of the population is more
susceptible to mental health concerns than the average hearing individual (person with fully
15
intact hearing). Deaf individuals have more mental health issues than their hearing counterparts
(e.g., Stevenson, Kreppner, Pimperton, Worsfold, & Kennedy, 2015; Fellinger, Holzinger, &
Pollard, 2012; Fellinger et al., 2009) across developmental stages. This is evidenced by estimates
that the vulnerability to mental health issues of deaf children is increased 1.5 - 2 times more than
that of hearing children (Hindley, 2005), deaf adolescents have a higher prevalence of
psychopathology (van Gent, Goedhart, Hindley, & Treffers, 2007), and deaf adult respondents
exhibit more symptoms of mental health problems than hearing respondents on a symptom
The deaf population’s increased vulnerability to mental health problems may be due to
W
minority and disabled status. Deaf individuals are a minority in a majority-hearing world,
IE
especially for those who identify as culturally Deaf (Padden, 1980; Padden & Humphries, 1988)
and communicate with American Sign Language (ASL). Not only are deaf individuals
EV
outnumbered in public sectors, they are also typically a minority in their own homes with 90% of
deaf children being born to hearing parents (NIDCD, 2016). Many hearing parents do not plan to
have a deaf child; thus, discovering and adapting to their child’s deafness can be a challenging
PR
adjustment. Many hearing parents do not know ASL and either do not wish to learn or struggle to
acquire fluency. A study conducted in the United Kingdom in 2005 found that the majority of
deaf children were likely to exhibit spoken language delays (Hindley, 2005). Additionally,
Hindley (2005) found that it was probable that the children who did utilize sign language in the
study as their primary mode of communication were not having their developmental needs met
by the signing competency of the adults and peers in their environment. Moreover, Hindley
asserted that the early language deprivation often experienced by deaf individuals in hearing
16
households is a key risk factor for developmental delays, which in turn, can influence future
hearing culture. Individuals with disabilities face more practical and social problems than
health concerns (Kvam, Loeb, & Tambs, 2006). Disabled status also predisposes DHH
individuals to become victims of abuse. The vulnerability to abuse is especially significant when
childhood maltreatment is considered, due to the immense impact abuse at a young age can have
on mental health functioning. Sullivan and Knutson (2000) found a 31% prevalence rate of
W
childhood maltreatment for individuals with disabilities as compared to a 9% prevalence rate for
IE
nondisabled children, resulting in children with disabilities being 3.4 times more likely to be
abused. This study also found evidence that deaf children are twice as likely to be neglected or
EV
emotionally abused and four times as likely to experience physical abuse than children with no
disability (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000). A recent study indicated that DHH individuals reported
significantly increased rates of childhood maltreatment, lifetime trauma, and PTSD symptoms as
PR
compared to hearing participants. Notably, the risk of experiencing traumatic events increased
with the severity of the deafness (Schenkel et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies show that children
with disabilities have an increased vulnerability to suffer from multiple types of childhood
maltreatment, are more likely to be victimized earlier in their youth, and are at a higher risk for
experiencing maltreatment in the home or in a specialized school setting (Kazak & Marvin,
1984; Sullivan & Knutson, 2000; Turner, Vanderminden, Finkelhor, Hamby, & Shattuck, 2011).
This broad, increased susceptibility to various types of childhood maltreatment and settings may
align with the evidence supporting the notion that deaf individuals are more likely to have
17
suicidal ideation and suicide attempts than hearing individuals (Black & Glickman, 2006;
Given the overall increased vulnerability for DHH individuals, it is important to consider the
research on prevalence rates of specific mental health disorders in DHH youth in the United
States. However, studies conducted in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom have
identified anxiety disorders as the most prevalent mental health issue in DHH youth. More
research is necessary to determine the reason for this increased prevalence in DHH children.
Some potential hypotheses include: perceiving the world as more frightening due to language
W
difficulties, the attitudes of hearing individuals, and adjusting to the hearing world (Li & Prevatt,
IE
2010); experiencing social situations as more “emotionally confus[ing]” and anxiety-provoking
(Li & Prevatt, 2010); difficulties with expressive speech affecting social development, in turn
EV
negatively impacting friendships and resulting in associations with increased anxiety (Azab,
Kamel, & Abdelrhman, 2015); social difficulties and isolation (Batten, Oakes, & Alexander,
2013); and symptoms going unrecognized due to communication barriers and lack of awareness
PR
The literature regarding childhood anxiety disorders in hearing children denotes that anxiety
disorders are highly common (e.g., Lønfeldt, Silverman, Esbjørn, 2017; Higa-McMillan, Francis,
Rith-Najarian, & Chorpita, 2016; Cartwright-Hatton, McNicol, Doubleday, 2006) and require
treatment due to the significant negative impacts of anxiety symptoms on youth (e.g., Wu et al.,
2016; Langley et al., 2014). Since childhood anxiety can have such detrimental effects on
hearing youth, it would seem to follow that the impacts may be even more significant for DHH
18
children, given their increased vulnerability. Therefore, similar care should be taken to address
Although anxiety disorders are often cited as the most prevalent psychiatric diagnosis in
DHH youth (e.g., Hindley, Hill, McGuigan, & Kitson, 1994; Roberts & Hindley, 1999), there is
some discrepancy in the literature pointing more broadly to internalizing disorders as a primary
concern. For instance, some studies have identified depression (e.g., Fellinger, Holzinger, Sattel,
Laught, & Goldberg, 2009), depression and anxiety (e.g., van Eldik, 2005; Konuk, Erdogan,
Atik, Ugur, & Simsekyilmaz, 2006), or anxiety and mood disorders (e.g., van Gent, Goedhart,
Hindley, & Treffers, 2007) as most prevalent among this population. In contrast, other studies
W
point to both internalizing and externalizing disorders (e.g., van Eldik, Treffers, Veerman, &
IE
Verhulst, 2004) as well as ADHD conduct, autism-spectrum, and bipolar disorders (e.g.,
Landsberger, Diaz, Spring, Sheward, & Sculley, 2014). However, these disorders are often
EV
prevalent in the general child population and therefore, it is difficult to clearly determine the
most prevalent disorder in the DHH youth population. Rationale for the discrepancies in the
literature may be due to differing study locations, methodology, and the immense diversity
PR
within the DHH population (i.e., level of hearing, age of onset, cause, utilization of assistive
discrepancies and the limited findings in the United States highlight the need for more rigorous
Despite the ample evidence that deaf individuals have an increased vulnerability and
higher rates of mental health problems, access to the mental health service system is remarkably
limited for DHH individuals (Pollard, 1994). A primary impediment is a significant language
19
barrier that exists due to the lack of ASL-fluent providers and the limited availability of quality
interpreting services. The dearth of qualified interpreters may be due to the demanding nature of
interpretation for mental health settings. This requires interpreters who are: (a) certified to
interpret, (b) knowledgeable about mental health terminology, and (c) willing to interpret and
capable of processing the emotional material to which they are exposed in therapeutic settings
(Cornes & Napier, 2005). It is important to note that ASL is a fully formed language with a
unique structure and grammar system independent from English (e.g., NIDCD, 2017; Pfau &
Quer, 2010; Gravel & O’Gara, 2003). ASL is a visual-spatial modality as opposed to English
which is vocal-auditory, which results in significant differences between the languages (Wilcox,
W
2000). Compared to English, grammar in ASL utilizes highly disparate modalities, including
IE
facial expressions (e.g., eyebrows go up for a “Yes/No” question), specific mouth movements
(e.g., mouth forms a “mm” configuration to indicate an action that done in a relaxed, regular
EV
manner), and spatial relationships (e.g., utilization of signing space, the space in front of the
signer’s body, to establish the location of objects in relation to the signer or describe a past
conversation by role-shifting between individuals) (Pfau & Quer, 2010; Wilcox, 2000; Wilbur &
PR
Patschke, 1998). ASL is not simply “English on the hands” and as such, there are English words
for which there are no ASL signs and signs for which there are no specific word equivalents. In
fact, Liddell (2003) stated, “In reality, since ASL and English are two entirely different
languages with completely different grammars, it would be highly unusual for an ASL sentence
ever to have exactly the same grammatical structure as an English sentence.” (p. 1-2).
Furthermore, ASL interpreters are not only navigating a complex linguistic divide, but they are
also tasked with addressing cultural discrepancies between Deaf and hearing culture (Cornes &
Napier, 2005). Such complexity can make interpretation a very challenging task, especially
20
within the specialized field of healthcare, and may contribute to the shortage of qualified
interpreters.
Notably, it is beneficial for mental health providers to have the ability to communicate
directly with their deaf patients rather than utilizing interpreting services. Interpreting for deaf
patients can pose potential threats to the therapeutic alliance as well as introduce linguistic and
role challenges (Cornes & Napier, 2005). A study by Brunson and Lawrence conducted in 2002
found that not only can interpretation have a meaningful impact on the therapeutic alliance, but
the interpreter’s mood can affect the mood of the deaf client. Brunson and Lawrence (2002)
showed that “despondent interpreter mood caused significant negative mood changes in the deaf
W
participant even when the therapist mood was neutral/cheerful” (p. 576). Although interpreters
IE
are impartial and have neutral impacts in other settings, therapy appears to be particularly
influenced by the interpreter’s own affective state. Brunson and Lawrence emphasized that
EV
therapists should conceptualize the interpreter as “dynamic member of a triadic therapeutic
process” as well as be cognizant of how the deaf client may or may not be affected by the
interpreter’s mood. Yet another notable consideration is that interpreters commonly socialize
PR
within the Deaf community on a regular basis (Mathos, Kilbourne, Myers, & Post, 2009) and
therefore, confidentiality may feel less guaranteed and concerning for Deaf clients (Mathos et al.,
2009; Connolly, Rose, & Austen, 2006). To illustrate this concept, imagine a Deaf woman has a
psychotherapy session with the use of an interpreter in which she tearfully discusses a traumatic
experience. Later that day, she sees the same interpreter at a social gathering (e.g., baby shower)
or later that week, she observes the interpreter working with her neighbor to interpret for a job
interview. One can imagine that, despite ethical and legal mandates for confidentiality (including
21
the interpreter Code of Ethics; Cornes & Napier, 2005), she may feel uncomfortable or not
Moreover, when there are a lack of competent interpreters, the resultant poor
communication in combination with lack of Deaf cultural awareness among healthcare staff can
lead to negative subjective experiences and significant declines in healthcare quality for deaf
individuals (Alexander, Ladd, & Powell, 2012). A study conducted in 2004 by the Royal
National Institute for the Deaf in London found that 77% of British Sign Language (BSL) users
experienced difficulty communicating with hospital personnel. Consequently, 33% of those deaf
patients were left with uncertainties about their medications or took the incorrect dosage.
W
Additionally, studies show that D/deaf individuals demonstrate lower health literacy rates as
IE
compared to their hearing counterparts (e.g., Smith & Samar, 2016; Kushalnagar et al., 2015;
McKee et al., 2015). Health literacy is defined by the Institute of Medicine as “the degree to
EV
which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information
and services needed to make appropriate health decisions” (Nielsen-Bohlman, Panzer, & Kindig,
2004). Therefore, communication difficulties with healthcare staff may be further hindered by
PR
reduced health literacy and understanding of the terminology being used to communicate,
This inefficiency in communication can be dangerous for deaf clients in medical settings
as well as within the mental health care system. Deaf individuals vary greatly in their
understanding of English mental health terms, with some terms only being recognized by 22% of
a Deaf sample (Steinberg, Sullivan, and Loew, 1998). Additionally, Steinberg, Sullivan, and
Loew (1998) found that Deaf individuals endorsed their Deaf friends as the most frequent source
(61%) for their knowledge of mental health terminology. Therefore, even if the interpreter is
22
highly qualified and delivers an accurate interpretation, the Deaf individual may have a different
understanding of the terminology. For example, Steinberg, Sullivan, and Loew found that even a
term as integral to mental health as “therapist” was recognized in English by only 44% of Deaf
participants.
When a provider is not fluent in ASL, the D/deaf individual may rely on less effective
Only approximately 30% of English is accessible through speechreading (Dowell et al., 1982).
One study indicated that when individuals are asked to lipread select sentences without the larger
context of a conversation and rely solely on visual information (i.e., no auditory cues) lipreading
W
word-recognition scores were accurate only 12.4% of the time (Altieri, Pisoni, & Townsend,
IE
2011). Such inexactitude requires a deaf patient to mentally fill in and fabricate the majority of
the conversation, which can lead to grave errors and misconceptions. Similarly, utilizing
EV
handwritten notes to communicate is incomparable to a typical spoken consultation. Not only is
literacy levels typically found within the Deaf community, with the average deaf high school
PR
graduate reading at a fourth-grade level (Holt, 1993). This may be due to limited access to
linguistically appropriate, quality education for deaf children, which in turn, affects the Deaf
community’s knowledge of the utility of mental health services as well as how to access such
services.
There is a sufficient body of research to suggest that deaf children’s reading scores fall
significantly behind those of their hearing peers (e.g., Kyle, Campbell, & MacSweeney, 2016; Qi
& Mitchell, 2012; Kyle & Harris, 2010; Kyle & Harris, 2006). Kyle, Campbell, and
MacSweeney (2016) discussed that even for deaf children whose intelligence scores fell in the
23
normative range, their reading outcomes were below those of their hearing counterparts.
Longitudinal studies have shown that deaf children develop reading skills at a slower rate due to
making significantly less progress over the course of an academic year as compared to hearing
children (Kyle & Harris, 2010). Therefore, this overall decrease in reading skills further limits
deaf individuals’ access to care through note writing as well as written handouts and forms.
Healthcare providers and clinicians need to be particularly aware of how decreased literacy rates
W
can mean decreased quality of care for DHH individuals (Alexander, Ladd, & Powell, 2012).
IE
This reduction in quality may be particularly salient in therapeutic and mental health settings.
medium through which the intervention is delivered and received, and communication is the
PR
and surgeries typically serve as the main form of treatment, it is apparent that psychotherapeutic
interventions are significantly more dependent upon effective communication between the
provider and the client. Thus, communication barriers should be reduced when providing care,
Another substantial obstacle to accessing mental health services is the lack of culturally
affirmative treatments for the deaf. The literature highlights the importance and efficacy of
culturally adapting treatment for minority groups (e.g., Rathod et al., 2018; Smith, Rodríguez, &
24
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.