Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, 430–437

doi: 10.1093/deafed/enaa012
Advance Access Publication Date: 1 June 2020
Empirical Manuscript

EMPIRICAL MANUSCRIPT

Factors Related to Personal Resiliency in Deaf

and Hard-of-Hearing Adolescents

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024

Vesna Radovanović*, Marina Radić Šestić, Jasmina Kovačević, and
Sanja Dimoski
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation

*Correspondence should be send to Vesna Radovanovic, University of Belgrade e-mail: radovanovic3@yahoo.com

Abstract
Hearing loss is a risk factor for a child’s appropriate psychosocial development but is not a risk factor for the development
of resiliency. Thus, the aim of this research was to determine the level of resiliency, as well as its relation to internal and
external factors, in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) adolescents. The sample included 55 DHH students, 12–14 years of age.
Resiliency Scales for Children & Adolescents was used in this research. The obtained results showed that DHH students
perceived their resiliency in the average range, except in subscales: Self-efficacy (within Sense of Mastery Scale), Social
Support (within Sense of Relatedness Scale), Impairment (within Emotional Reactivity Scale) in which the results were
within a higher range, and Recovery (within Emotional Reactivity Scale) in which the results were in a lower range.

Resilience is a positive adaptation or ability to preserve or
restore mental health despite experiencing hardships (Wald,
Taylor, Asmundson, Jang, & Stapleton, 2006). Meichenbaum
gives two definitions of resilience. In the first one, the author
views resilience as an ability to keep balance and a relatively
stable level of psychological and physical functioning, even
in highly stressful and traumatic events (Meichenbaum, 2006).
According to the second definition, resilience is people’s ability
to successfully cope with, adapt, or recover from stress or an
accident (Meichenbaum, 2009).
The development of resilience is influenced by the interac-
tion of internal and external factors. Internal factors include
academic achievement, persistence, positive thoughts and
positive interpretation of events, optimism, emotional regu-
lation, self-confidence, positive self-concept, independence,
sense of belonging, aspiration level, creativity, internal locus
of control, and self-regulation. External factors include the
relation between a child and adults, education programs, culture,
religion, and availability of social and material resources of
the community (Stanley, 2011; Ungar et al., 2007). A person’s
individual qualities and resilience are strengthened and
developed through interactions in a supportive environment
(Masten, 2014), while the protective role of external factors
leads to strengthening internal capacities for the development
of resilience (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Luthar & Zelazo, 2003,
according to Johnson, Cawthon, Fink, Wendel, & Schoffstall,
2018).
Luthar and Zalazo (2003), according to Prince-Embury (2011),
separate the term resilience from the term resiliency. These
authors define the personal characteristics that are predisposed
to resilient outcomes by the term “resiliency.” Personal resilience
can be grouped into three factors: sense of mastery, sense of
relatedness, and emotional reactivity. The sense of mastery
presents a personal resource in dealing with problems, the sense
of relatedness refers to social support received and appropri-
ate social skills, and the emotional reactivity implies a lack
of emotional positive self-regulation abilities (Prince-Embury,
2007).

Received June 11, 2019; revisions received March 23, 2020; accepted March 27, 2020

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

430

Development of Resiliency in Deaf and
Hard-of-Hearing Adolescents
Deaf children, like all other children, grow up and learn from
their parents. A problem may arise when a deaf child has hear-
ing parents and thus, due to communication barriers, cannot
easily identify with them or exchange experiences (Bat-Chava,
1994). Results of some studies indicate that interactivity and
responsiveness of a deaf child, as well as sensitivity of a mother,
are lower than optimal (Ziv, Aviezer, Gini, Sagi, & Koren-Karie,
2000). Thus, many authors believe that resilience of deaf people
is their ability to successfully function in both Hearing and
Deaf communities (Charlson, Bird, & Strong, 1999; Jacobs, 2010;
Rogers, Muir, & Evenson, 2003). Communication and socioemo-
tional skills are crucial for the development of resilience (Zim-
merman, 2015). Since emotional regulation and communication
skills contribute to the development of resilience, these educa-
tional services and intervention programs are valuable as they
indirectly contribute to the development of resilience rather than
stating in a way that these services directly influence resilience
development (Hintermair, 2006; Pollard & Rendon, 1999).
Hearing loss, especially profound and total, hinders the devel-
opment of speech and language, which has an impact on emo-
tional, social, cognitive, and educational development (Rado-
man, 2005). With growing up and becoming adolescents, deaf
and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children, as well as their typically
developing peers, go through a period of fast changes in physical,
cognitive, emotional, and social development. Due to reduced
speech development and limited communication in childhood,
these children may have difficulties in understanding the nature
and extent of such changes. They can be helped by their families
or other adults with whom they have established a relationship
based on trust and good communication. As a transition period,
adolescence is significant in every individual’s life, especially in
deaf students. During this period, many of the earlier develop-
mental processes and outcomes may be reflected later in adult-
hood. Although the ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986)
suggests several ways to support resilience, it cannot provide a
comprehensive understanding of the extent and nature of the
risks that deaf adolescents face. In order to prevent potential
negative outcomes, it is necessary to consider risk factors for
each individual, which result from personal characteristics, fam-
ily, and environmental conditions (Luft, 2011).
Relationship with peers, which becomes primary when
compared to family, is very important for the development
of resilience in adolescence (Berndt, 1982). According to most
researchers (Goldstein & Morgan, 2001; Hartup, 1984), acceptance
by peers is very important for social development in adolescence.
Relationships with peers are a basis for social and emotional
development, and self-confidence results from the feeling of
belonging to and identifying with a peer group. In order to
successfully function in a community and make friends, young
people need social skills, such as norms and rules of the society
an individual belongs to, which are acquired by socialization.
On the basis of numerous research studies, Dimoski (2018)
states that social adaptation of deaf children and adolescents
is hampered by individual characteristics, primarily lower self-
esteem, as well as by the tendency of the majority to make close
contact with people similar to themselves. Language delay in
deaf children may result in a lower level of social skills and lack
of self-confidence, which is very difficult to overcome later in life
(Moeller, 2007), since speech and language play an important role
in the socialization process of DHH adolescents (Scheetz, 2004).
Here, we can emphasize the importance of early rehabilitation of
Vesna Radovanovic et al. 431
speech and language for social development, which in typically
developing children starts as soon as a child is able to watch
and listen to people in his/her environment. Due to speech
and language delay, problems in communication, and growing
up in an environment where auditory information dominates,
we can assume that DHH children may have a lower level of
self-confidence. Well-developed language and communication
skills are directly related to the level of self-confidence of DHH
children (Hintermair, 2008).
Communication constraints and inappropriate language
models at school and at home are the first significant group
of threats to the development of resilience, while the second
significant group includes inadequate literacy and lower
academic achievement of DHH students (Lytle, Oliva, Ostrove,
& Cassady, 2011). Listman, Rogers, and Hauser (2011) state that
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024
low aspiration level of hearing parents and hearing teachers of
deaf children is related to their lower academic achievement.
Williamson (2007), according to Listman et al. (2011), found that
academically successful older African-American adolescents
had a high level of resilience. Their families were actively
involved in their lives during college, communicating with
and supporting them frequently. In the literature focusing
on resilience of DHH adolescents, the authors examined the
relation between resilience and academic success in different
academic environments, inclusive or special. On the other hand,
Charlson et al. (1999), when analyzing the case history of a
subsample consisting of 23 DHH students assessed as successful
by their teachers, with no set success criterion, found that they
all had one characteristic in common, which was a high level of
resilience. The students had different sociocultural, linguistic,
and educational backgrounds. Research results indicate that
emotional and social skills are internal factors, which have
a great influence on academic and social achievement (see
Zimmerman, 2015 for a review).
Although the Resiliency Scales for Children & Adolescents
(RSCA) is primarily intended to determine resiliency in the
school setting, as a screening instrument, as well as a starting
point in the planning of group or individual resiliency programs
and the evaluation of such programs (Prince-Embury, 2011),
a widespread use in the literature of this instrument is
observed. RSCA has been used to compare resiliency between
students with intellectual disabilities and students of typical
development (Gilmore, Campbell, Shochet, & Roberts, 2013;
Pavlović, Žunić Pavlović, & Glumbić, 2017a) to test substance
abuse in adolescence (Pavlović, Žunić Pavlović, & Glumbić,
2017b), with an impact on the sleep and behavior of children and
adolescents (Chatburn, Coussens, & Kohler, 2014) to determine
the correlation with internal and external factors in Bolivian
street girls (Wynsma, 2016).
Project in the field of special education reform, as well as
a new educational strategy in Serbia until 2020, encouraged us
to conduct this research on resiliency of DHH children, with
the goal to take appropriate measures before their “transition”
to regular schooling system. Research has shown that DHH
students feel lonely in regular schools and have fewer hearing
peers as friends (Batten, Oakes, & Alexander, 2014; Charlson,
Strong, & Gold, 1992; Van Gurp, 2001). Younger DHH students are
more accepted by older students because older students have
more problems with confidence and making new friends (Antia,
Kreimeyer, & Reed, 2010). Keeping and making new friends are
very important for the development of resilience (Newman &
Blackburn, 2002). Providing support for students with develop-
mental disorders and disabilities, using available material and
social resources, counseling, and involving parents as members
 432 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4

Table 1. Demographics of the sample

Age 12 13 14
f % f % f

14 25.5 21 38.2 20

Gender Male Female

f % f %
23 41.8 32 58.2

Degree of hearing loss Moderate Moderately severe Severe Profound

f % f % f % f %
13 23.6 5 9.1 18 32.7 19 34.5

Mode of communication spoken Language Sign language Total communication

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024

f % f % f %
8 14.5 22 40.0 25 45.5

School achievement Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory

f % f % f % f %
24 43.6 20 36.4 8 14.5 3 5.5

School type Day students Residential students

f % f %
30 54.5 25 45.5

Father’s education level Elementary/secondary College/university

f % f %
40 72.7 15 27.3

Mother’s education level Elementary/secondary College/university

f % f %
41 74.6 14 25.4

Type of family Complete Incomplete Extended

f % f % f %
32 58.2 11 20.0 12 21.8

of support teams are some of the goals set within the edu-
cational reform strategy in Serbia, which directly or indirectly
affect the development of resiliency. With regard to that, the aim
of our research was to determine the level of resiliency, as well as
its relation to internal and external factors, in DHH adolescents.
Method
Participants
Sociodemographic characteristics of students are shown in
Table 1.
The sample consisted of 55 DHH children in the age group
from 12 to 14 years, enrolled in schools for DHH children in
Serbia, with no additional disabilities and disorders. There were
23 (41.8%) boys and 32 (58.2%) girls. The majority of students, 37
(67.2%), had severe and profound hearing loss, while 18 (32.7%)
had moderate to severe and moderate hearing loss according
to the World Health Organization classification (WHO, 2008).
There were 22 (40%) students who used sign language, 25 (45.5%)
who used total communication, and 8 (14.5%) who used spoken
language. There were 24 (43.6%) excellent students, 20 (36.4%)
very good, 8 (14.5%) good, and 3 (5.5%) satisfactory students. The
sample included 30 (54.5%) residential students and 25 (55.5%)
day students. Approximately three quarters of mothers (74.6%)
and fathers (72.7%) finished elementary or secondary school,
while there were 14 (25.5%) mothers and 15 (27.3%) fathers with
college or university degrees. More than half of the students,
32 (58.2%) lived in complete families, 12 (21.8%) in extended
families, and 11 (20.0%) lived in incomplete families.
Procedures
The research was conducted in spring 2017 on a sample of
students attending schools for DHH students in Serbia, with the
permission of school principals and written consent of parents.
Data on the degree of hearing loss were taken from the school
audiologist, while data on families were taken from school social
workers. The research was carried out individually with 10-
minute breaks between assigning the subscales to DHH students
who needed a long time to read the statements and choose
the degree to which they agreed with the given statements.
Formulations of the items were structurally simple and easy
to read, written at a third grade reading level, so that all DHH
students could read them. A psychologist from the research
team conducted the research with students who used oral model
of communication and, together with the school psychologist
who was proficient in sign language, conducted the research
with students who used sign language and total communica-
tion method. The psychologists gave detailed instructions to
students, depending on the primary model of communication,
after which the students completed the scales.
 Vesna Radovanovic et al. 433

Administration of the Measures Table 2. Results of scales and subscales

Resiliency Scales for Children & Adolescents (Prince-Embury, M SD Min Max

2007) was used in this study because it was designed to
reveal positive sides of the child and not his/her weaknesses MAS 51.31 9.99 27 75
(Prince-Embury, 2015). It consists of three subscales: Sense of Optimism 17.38 4.38 5 28
Mastery Scale—MAS, which measures optimism, self-efficacy, Self-efficacy 33.93 6.48 21 48
Flexibility 8.04 2.74 2 12
and flexibility Opzimism, Self-efficacy, and Flexibility. Sense of
REL 62.89 13.52 29 92
Relatedness Scale—REL, which measures trust, social support,
Trust 18.58 4.1 10 28
social comfort, and tolerance; and Emotional Reactivity Scale—
Social support 22.33 5.67 10 32
REA, which measures sensitivity, recovery, and impairment.
Social comfort 10.47 1.1 5 16
The focus on the personal experience of children implies that
Tolerance 16.8 4.65 5 28
the experience mediates between external protective factors
REA 28.16 14.23 0 57
and positive behavioral outcomes (Prince-Embury, 2007). An Sensitivity 11.13 4.67 0 20
example of an item measuring mastery is I can let others help Recovery 4.89 4.01 0 13

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024

me when I need to. Relatedness was measured by items such as If
something bad happens, I can ask my parent(s) for help and emotional
reactivity by items such as When I am upset, I make mistakes. The
answers are scored and added up, and they are the basis for the
“resiliency profile” of children and adolescents 9–18 years of age.
The students are asked to respond to statements by marking on
a 5-point scale. The degree of resiliency in participants increases
with the increase in the total score for the MAS and REL, and for
the REA, the reverse interpretation is made. Internal consistency
coefficients of the scales were at the satisfactory level: α = .83
for MAS scale, α = .89 for REL scale, and α = .91 for REA scale. The
raw score for each of the global scales was obtained by summing
up all items scored for each scale. Raw scores were transformed
to standardized T-scores using computed means and standard
deviations for normative groups by age and gender.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were expressed in frequencies and percent-
ages. Arithmetic means (T-score means) was used as a central
tendency measure, which expresses average T scores on the
scale and certain subscales. Associations between resiliency and
internal and external variables were analyzed with Person’s
correlation. The one-sample t-test was used to calculate the
significance of differences of the isolated independent variables.
Results
Table 2 shows the results of MAS, REL, and REA scales, as well
as of the individual subscales, Resource Index and Vulnerability
Index.
Sense of Mastery Scale
In Optimism subscale, the mean score was in the average range
17.38, ranging from 11.1 to 23. In Self-efficacy subscale, the mean
value was 33.93, which is in the domain of high values ranging
from 33.1 to 35. The mean value of achieved results in Flexibility
subscale was in the average range, 8.4 (5.1–10).
Impairment 12.15 7.34 0 26
Resource Index 56.51 11.19 28 83
Vulnerability Index 29.76 15.75 12 54
Note. SD = standard deviation; MAS = Sense of Mastery Scale; REL = Sense of
Relatedness Scale; REA = Emotional Reactivity Scale.
Emotional Reactivity Scale
Within the third scale, the obtained results in Sensitivity subscale
were in the average range, 11.13 (10.1–20), while they were in the
low range in Recovery subscale, 4.89 (1–7) and in the high range
in Impairment subscale, 12.15 (10–15).
The average Resource Index value is 56.51, and the qualitative
analysis showed that four students had an index less than T40.
The average value of the Vulnerability Index is at a satisfactory
level and stands at 29.76.
Table 3 shows the intercorrelations between resiliency
and internal (age, gender, degree of hearing loss, type of
communication, school achievement) and external (school type,
parent’s education level, type of family) variables.
Measures of correlation between scores on the resiliency
scales were not found for any of the internal factors. Lower
correlation measures were found between scores obtained on
the MAS scale and school type (r = .285), MAS scale and father’s
education (r = .316), MAS scale and mother’s education (r = .271),
and Vulnerabilty index and mother’s education (r = .268). Fur-
ther analysis revealed the correlation between the mentioned
variables and subscales, school type and Optimism subscale
(r = .281), father’s education and Optimism subscale (r = .342;
p = .011) and Flexibility (r = .484; p = .0001). No correlations were
found between mother’s education and subscales within MAS
scales (Table 3).
The results of the t-test showed that the residential
students had a significantly higher level of optimism (t = 2.134;
df = 53; p = .037), that the children of fathers with high edu-
cation level showed a higher level of optimism (t = 2.084;
df = 53; p = .042) and Flexibility (t = 2.885; df = 53; p = .006), as
well as that children of mothers with high education level
exhibit a lower level of Vulnerability index (t = 2.047; df = 53;
p = .046).

Sense of Relatedness Scale Discussion

The mean value-score in Trust subscale was in the average range, Most mean values in this research, obtained in all three
18.58 (11.1–25); higher range in Social support subscale, 22.33 scales, were within the average range. Mean values obtained
(20.1–30); average in Social comfort subscale, 10.47 (7.1–14); and in the Sense of Mastery scale were very significant because,
average in Tolerance subscale, 16.80 (11.1–23). as Prince-Embury (2011) concludes, theory and research results
 434 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
Table 3. Intercorrelations between resiliency and internal and external variables
MAS REL
Age 0.073 −0.121
Gender −0.004 0.111
Degree of hearing loss 0.127 0.206
Mode of communication 0.010 −0.042
School achievement 0.185 0.067
School type 0.285∗ 0.264
Father’s education level 0.316∗ 0.005
Mother’s education level 0.271∗ 0.101
Type of family −0.011 −.007
Note. MAS = Sense of Mastery Scale; REL = Sense of Relatedness Scale; REA = Emotional Reactivity Scale.
∗ p < .05
indicate that children who have a greater sense of advancement
are more likely to succeed in school settings and less likely
to develop pathological patterns. The obtained higher values
in Support subscale indicate that DHH students have someone
to turn to when encountering a problem, while mean values
in Impairment subscale indicate that children find it difficult to
maintain emotional equilibrium when provoked (Prince-Embury
& Courville, 2008). Resource Index is satisfactory, except for
the four students who require improvement of mastery and
relatedness (Prince-Embury, 2015). Lower level of achievement
of Vulnerability Index confirms that deafness is not a risk factor
of personal resiliency. It is difficult to determine a direct relation
between one factor and a certain negative developmental
outcome, and as Pavlović and Žunić-Pavlović (2012) indicate,
this approach was overcome long ago and replaced by a holistic
approach, where problem-causing factors are studied along with
factors that contribute to the positive development of children
and youth at high-risk. Furthermore, the authors emphasize
practitioners’ opinion that it is more effective to work on
improving resiliency than on eliminating risk.
Results from a large number of studies show that there are
age and gender differences in resiliency (Gilmore et al., 2013;
Pavlović et al., 2017a, 2017b; Žunić Pavlović, Pavlović, Kovačević
Lepojević, Glumbić, & Kovačević, 2013), which has not been
substantiated in this study, and can be explained by the very
formulation of items in the scale that take a gender bias into
account as cited by Prince-Embury (2007).
In line with research findings (Wyman, Cowen, Work, & Ker-
ley, 1993), the results obtained on the MAS scale were expected
to correlate with the school achievement, but a low correla-
tion coefficient was obtained. We believe that the assessment
method is related to the results obtained, because the assess-
ment relies more on the teacher’s subjective assessment than
on a more objective evaluation method objective evaluation
method, through tests.
The results obtained to the advantage of residential students
are in contrast with the results of most studies which indicate
that family has great influence on the development of resiliency,
especially a close relationship with at least one parent, relation-
ship based on trust, good parenting skills, absence of separation,
absence of mother’s depression, or substance abuse (Pavlović &
Žunić-Pavlović, 2012; Ungar et al., 2007). In adolescence, conver-
sations with family members, peers, and other significant people
from the environment become very important. Communication
with parents may become difficult, and professional help is often
needed in order to overcome problems and misunderstandings.
Werner and Smith (1982) according to Prince-Embury (2015)
REA Resource Index Vulnerability Index
0.083 −.038 −.181
0.134 0.094 −0.063
0.002 0.218 0.089
−0.033 0.013 0.072
0.004 0.154 0.049
−0.031 0.248 0.127
0.205 0.156 0.262
0.213 0.185 0.268∗
0.142 −.024 −.107
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024
found that resilient youth rely more on other adults in the envi-
ronment than on their parents. Our assumption is that educators
in residential schools, who are qualified to work with DHH chil-
dren, take over the role of that adult, since their daily activities,
among others, are aimed at adaptation, socialization, preven-
tion, and solving personal problems. Apart from that, living in
a residential school provides contacts and cooperation with a
large number of peers and older DHH students, which may affect
identification with the deaf culture. These results could possibly
be explained by availability of material resources in residential
schools, with significant role in the development of resiliency
(Ungar et al., 2007), which was not examined in this research.
On the basis of numerous research studies, Listman, Rogers,
and Hauser (2011) state that the level of parental aspirations
regarding the education of their DHH children is a key factor
in the development of resiliency in adolescence. Father’s edu-
cation proved to be a significant factor related to Optimism and
Flexibility component in this study. Studies show that fathers
with high education are more able to be role models and teach
their children skills related to flexibility (for example Conger,
Conger, & Scaramella, 1997). Since the Flexibility component
relies on the ability to consider different options in problem
solving (Prince-Embury, 2007), this leads to the conclusion that
DHH students could have adopted it from their fathers, since
most students, 80%, lived in complete or extended families.
Prince-Embury (2011) points out that, due to the significance
of sense of mastery, preventive programs should be developed
and designed to increase general and specific sense of mastery
by increasing children’s ability to deal with problems and their
sense of success. This study found that DHH children of mothers
with high education are less vulnerable, which is consistent
with the research results on the protective role of mothers
in the development of resiliency in DHH students presented
by Borum (2007) according to Listman et al. (2011). Research
results show that a warm relationship with mother, as well
as supportive relationships with family members, has a lead-
ing role in the development of resilience with regard to fam-
ily type (Leigh, Brice, & Meadow-Orlans, 2004). Since research
results show that grandparents have an important role in the
development of resiliency (Daniel & Wassell, 2002, according to
Pavlović & Žunić-Pavlović, 2012), it was expected that children
from extended families would show a higher level of resiliency.
However, these children achieved a lower level, even compared
to children from incomplete families. This makes room for a new
study which would focus on the relation between resiliency and
structure and quality of relationships within a family. Hearing
loss can be a risk factor for some aspects of a child’s psychosocial

development but not for resiliency. Research shows that prob-
lems in understanding emotions can be associated with the
development of psychopathological symptoms or poor social
functioning in life (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010). There are
indications that, due to communication problems, problems in
understanding emotions occur more frequently in deaf children
than in their typically developing peers (Rieffe & Terwogt, 2006).
It has also been determined that deaf children less frequently
control their anger and happiness compared to hearing children
(Hosie, Russell, Gray, Scott, & Hunter, 2000; Terwogt & Rieffe,
2004). Therefore, examining the association of particular aspects
of resiliency with internalized and externalized behavioral dis-
orders (Prince-Embury, 2011) among DHH adolescents is one of
the next research goals. This study examined the correlation
between school achievement and personal resiliency from fac-
tors within the school setting, while the association with other
factors related to personal resiliency, such as school attendance,
school completion, and relationships with teachers (Prince-Em-
bury, 2015), was not examined. In addition, one of the limitations
of this study is the fact that communication skills are of great
importance for the development of self-esteem at this age, and
their level was not determined.
Conclusion
The results obtained in this research indicated that perception
of resiliency in DHH students was in the average or high range
(MAS, REL), with the exception of the results obtained in Impair-
ment (REA scale) where the results were in the higher range.
The protective factors of personal resiliency of DHH students
do not deviate from the norms (sense of mastery and sense of
relatedness), as well as the risk factors (emotional reactivity), as
confirmed by previous studies (Prince-Embury, 2007; Prince-Em-
bury & Saklofske, 2013). Based on the Resource Index value,
four students were identified who needed to be provided with
preventive interventions that would strengthen the personal
resource, while the Vulnerability Index was satisfactory for both
the DHH group of children and individuals.
More attention should be given to examining personal
resiliency, since there is an increasing number of DHH students
who are included in regular schooling system (Sheridan, 2011).
In terms of preparedness for the establishment of certain social
relationships with their peers with disabilities, the research
done by Antia and Kreimeyer (1996) deserves attention. They
came to the conclusion that, after specially created and jointly
conducted activities by teachers in the group of DHH students
and their hearing peers, for the purpose of getting closer and
better acquainted with each other, no intervention increased the
interaction between the DHH students and their hearing peers.
In order to prevent social isolation of DHH students, during the
transition period, children, their families, and their social envi-
ronment should be prepared by specially designed individual
programs aimed at the development of resiliency. Given that
personal resiliency is variable and adolescence is a sensitive
period, the RSCA should be used as a screening instrument at the
beginning of the school year, especially when transitioning from
lower to higher education levels or transferring DHH children
from DHH schools to mainstream schools.
References
Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1996). Social interaction and
acceptance of deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their
peers: A comparison of social-skills and familiarity-based
interventions. Volta Review, 98(4), 157–180.
Vesna Radovanovic et al. 435
Antia, S. D., Kreimeyer, K. H, & Reed, S. (2010). Supporting stu-
dents in general education classrooms. In M. Marschark & P.
E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language,
and education 2, (pp.72–92). New York: Oxford University
Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0006
Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and self-esteem of
deaf adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5),
494–502.
Batten, G., Oakes, P. M., & Alexander, T. (2014). Factors associated
with social interactions between deaf children and their
hearing peers: A systematic literature review. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 19(3), 285–302. doi: 10.1093/deaf-
ed/ent052
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friend-ship in early
adolescence. Child Development, 53(6), 1447–1459.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024
Borum, V. (2007). African American mothers with deaf children:
A womanist conceptual framework. Families in Society, 88(4),
595–604. https://doi.org/10.1606&#x0025;2F1044-3894.3682;
https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3682
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as context for
human development: Resercah perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.
Charlson, E., Bird, R. L., & Strong, M. (1999). Resilience and suc-
cess among deaf high school students: Three case studies.
American Annals of the Deaf , 144(3), 226–235.
Charlson, E., Strong, M., & Gold, R. (1992). How successful deaf
teenagers experience and cope with isolation. American
Annals of the Deaf , 137(3), 261–270.
Chatburn, A., Coussens, S., & Kohler, M. (2014). Resiliency as a
mediator of the impact of sleep on child and adolescent
behavior. Nature and Science of Sleep, 6, 1–9. https://doi.o
rg/10.2147/NSS.S54913
Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (1997). Parents,
siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustment.
Journal in Adolescent Research, 12(1), 113–138.
Daniel, B., & Wassell, S. (2002). The school years: Assessing and
promoting resilience in vulnerable children. Philadelphia, PA:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Dimoski, S. (2018). Psychosocial aspects of hearing loss in chil-
dren. Proceedings of the 2nd symposium of speech therapist,
audiologist and phoniatrics, 34–47. Belgrade: Association of
speech therapist from Serbia.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-
related self-regulation and its relation to children’s malad-
justment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525. doi:
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Gilmore, L., Campbell, M., Shochet, I., & Roberts, C. (2013).
Resiliency profiles of children with intellectual disability
and their typically developing peers. Psychology in the Schools,
50(10), 1032–1043. doi: 10.1002/pits.21728
Goldstein, H., & Morgan, L. (2001). Social interaction and models
of friendship development. In H. Goldstein, L. A. Kaczmarek
& K. M. English (Eds.), Promoting social communication: Children
with developmental disabilities from birth to adolescence (pp.
5–25). Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hartup, W. W. (1984). The peer context in middle childhood. In W.
A. Collins (Ed.), Development during middle childhood. The years
from six to twelve (pp. 240–282). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Hintermair, M. (2006). Parental resources, parental stress, and
socioemotional development of deaf and hard of hearing
children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(4),
493–513. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enl005
Hintermair, M. (2008). Self-esteem and satisfaction with life
of deaf and hard-of-hearing people - a resource-oriented
 436 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
approach to identity work. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 13(2), 278–300. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm054
Hosie, J. A., Russell, P. A., Gray, C. D., Scott, C., & Hunter, N.
(2000). Knowledge of display rules in prelingually deaf and
hearing children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
41(3), 389–398. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00623
Jacobs, P. G. (2010). Psychosocial potential maximization: A
framework of proactive psychosocial attributes and tactics
used by individuals who are deaf. Volta Review, 110(1), 5–29.
doi: 10.17955/tvr.110.1.618
Johnson, P., Cawthon, S., Fink, B., Wendel, E., & Schoffstall, S.
(2018). Trauma and resilience among deaf. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 23(4), 1–14. doi: 10.1093/deaf-
ed/eny024
Leigh, I. W., Brice, P. J., & Meadow-Orlans, K. (2004). Attach-
ment in deaf mothers and their children. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 176–188. doi: 10.1093/deaf-
ed/enh019Individuals
Listman, J., Rogers, K. D., & Hauser, P. C. (2011). Community
cultural wealth and deaf adolescents’ resilience. In D. H.
Zand & K. J. Pierce (Eds.), Resilience in deaf children: Adaptation
through emerging adulthood, (pp. 279–297). New York, NY:
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7796-0_10
Luft, P. (2011). Promoting resilience in deaf adolescents. In D. H.
Zand & K. J. Pierce (Eds.), Resilience in deaf children: Adaptation
through emerging adulthood, (pp. 305–317). New York, NY:
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7796-0_10
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience:
Implications for interventions and social policies.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400004156
Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Research on resilience: An inte-
grative review. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability:
Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 510–549).
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615788.023). Cambridge
University Press.
Lytle, L. R., Oliva, G. A, Ostrove, J. M., & Cassady, C. (2011). Build-
ing resilience in adolescence: The influences of individual,
family, school, and community perspectives and practices.
In D. H. Zand & K. J. Pierce (Eds.), Resilience in deaf children:
Adaptation through emerging adulthood, (pp. 251–277). New
York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7796-0_10
Masten, A. S. (2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (2006). Resilience and posttraumatic growth:
A constructive narrative perspective. In L. G. Calhoun &
R. G. Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth (pp.
355–368). Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum Associates.
Meichenbaum, D. (2009). Bolstering resilience: Benefiting from
lessons learned. In D. Brom, R. Pat-Horenczyk & J. D. Ford
(Eds.), Treating traumatized children: Risk, resilience and recovery
(pp. 183–192). New York: Routledge.
Moeller, M. P. (2007). Current state of knowledge: Psychosocial
development in children with hearing impairment. Ear and
Hearing, 28(6), 729–739. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318157f033
Newman, T., & Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the lives of
children and young people: Resilience factors. Retrieved
October 16, 2019. From https://b.barnardos.org.uk/ic78.pdf
Pavlović, M., & Žunić-Pavlović, V. (2012). The resilience concept in
contemporary literature. Journal of Education, 61(2), 232–248.
ID 190545164
Pavlović, M., Žunić Pavlović, V., & Glumbić, N. (2017a). A com-
parison of individual qualities of resiliency in adolescents
with mild intellectual disability and typically developing
adolescents. Journal of Education, 66(2), 289–304. doi:
10.5937/nasvas1702289P
Pavlović, M., Žunić Pavlović, V., & Glumbić, N. (2017b). Relation
between resilience and cigarette/alcohol use in adolescents
with mild intellectual disabilities. Vojnosanitetski pregled,
76(3), 259–265. doi: 10.2298/vsp170408086p
Pollard, R., & Rendon, M. (1999). Mixed deaf-hearing families:
Maximising benefits and minimizing risks. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 4(2), 156–161. doi: 10.1093/deaf-
ed/4.2.156
Prince-Embury, S. (2007). Resiliency scales for children and adoles-
cents: A profile of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Har-
court Assessment, Inc.
Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008). Measurement invariance
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024
of the resiliency scales for children and adolescents
with respect to sex and age cohorts. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 23, 26–40. https://doi.o
rg/10.1177/0829573508316589
Prince-Embury, S. (2011). Assessing personal resiliency in the
context of school settings: Using the resiliency scales for
children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 48(7),
672–685. doi: 0.1002/pits.20581
Prince-Embury, S., & Saklofske, D. H. (2013). Resilience in children,
adolescent and adults: Translating research into practice. New
York, NY: Springer.
Prince-Embury, S. (2015). Assessing personal resiliency in school
settings: The resiliency scales for children and adolescents.
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 25(1), 55–65.
doi: 10.1017/jgc.2014.22
Radoman, V. (2005). Psychology of deaf and hard of hearing. Belgade,
ICF: Faculty of special education and rehabilitation, Univer-
sity of Belgrade.
Rieffe, C., & Terwogt, M. M. (2006). Anger communication in
deaf children. Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1261–1273. doi:
10.1080/02699930500513502
Rogers, S., Muir, K., & Evenson, C. R. (2003). Signs of resilience:
Assets that support deaf adults’ success in bridging the
deaf and hearing worlds. American Annals of the Deaf , 148(3),
222–232. doi: 10.1353/aad.2003.0023
Scheetz, N. A. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of deafness. Boston, Mas-
sachusetts: Pearson Education.
Sheridan, M. A. (2011). Whose literacy is it, anyway? Strengths-
based guidelines for transforming the developmental envi-
ronments of deaf children and adolescents. In D. H. Zand &
K. J. Pierce (Eds.), Resilience in deaf children: Adaptation through
emerging adulthood, (pp. 229–249). New York, NY: Springer.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7796-0_10
Stanley, P. (2011). Insights about resilience in emerging adult-
hood from a small longitudinal study in New Zealand. The
Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(1),
1–14. doi: 10.1375/aedp.28.1.1
Terwogt, M. M., & Rieffe, C. (2004). Deaf children’s use of beliefs
and desires in negotiation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 9(1), 27–38. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enh013
Ungar, M., Brown, M., Liebenberg, L., Othman, R., Kwong, V.
M., Armstrong, M., & Gilgun, J. (2007). Unique pathways
to resilience across cultures. Adolescence, 42(166), 287–310.
PubMed ID: 17849937
Van Gurp, S. (2001). Self-concept of deaf secondary school
students in different educational settings. The Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(1), 54–69. https://doi.o
rg/10.1093/deafed/6.1.54

Wald, J., Taylor, S., Asmundson, G. J., Jang, K. L., & Stapleton,
J. (2006). Literature review of concepts: Psychological resiliency.
Vancouver, Canada: British Columbia University.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A
longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Williamson, C. E. (2007). Black deaf students: A model for educational
success. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
World Health Organisation. Deafness and hearing loss [database on
the Internet]. WHO. 2018. Retrived from: http:// www.who.i
nt/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/ ∗ A wording change is
needed in text WHO (2008), instead of 2008 it should stay in
2018
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J. H. (1993). The
role of children’s future expectations in self-system func-
tioning and adjustment to life stress: A prospective study
of urban at-risk children. Development and Psychopathology,
5, 649–661.
Vesna Radovanovic et al. 437
Wynsma, E. (2016). Factors correlating with resilience in Bolivian
street girls. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Fox
University. Newberg, Oregon. Retrieved from http://digitalco
mmons.georgefox.edu/psyd/225
Zimmerman, H. G. (2015). Resilience as a verb or a noun: A lit-
erature review. Gallaudet Chronicles of Psychology, 3(1), 20–26.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4818/d371
f73b6f07effa415db9c1e60c3bef9916.pdf
Ziv, Y., Aviezer, O., Gini, M., Sagi, A., & Koren-Karie, N. (2000).
Emotional availability in the mother–infant dyad as related
to the quality of infant–mother attachment relationship.
Attachment and Human Development, 2(2), 149–169. doi:
10.1080/14616730050085536
Žunić Pavlović, V., Pavlović, M., Kovačević Lepojević, M., Glumbić,
N., & Kovačević, R. (2013). The relationships between per-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/430/5849136 by guest on 09 March 2024
sonal resiliency and externalising and internalising prob-
lems in adolescence. Československá Psychologie, 57(1), 1–14.
s. 1-14 - SCOPUS