There is more to assessing the skills and competencies of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth than simply selecting an evaluation instrument from a list of recommended tests. Randy Kamphaus, in one of his books directed to the clinical practitioner, Clinical Assessment of Children's Intelligence: A Handbook for Professional Practice, shares the following opinion:

"The examiner who is unfamiliar with hearing-impaired children and the issue of hearing impairments in general may be able to get a score, perhaps even an accurate score. The central issues, however, are interpretation of that score and treatment plan design. An examiner with greater expertise related to the child's referral problem will simply be able to better understand the etiology, course, and treatments. It's a matter similar to seeing a psychiatrist for heart problems. While the psychiatrist can perhaps obtain relevant EKG and other test scores, I personally would feel better in the hands of a cardiologist!" (Kamphaus, 1993, p. 400).

Blennerhassett, L. (in press). Psychological Assessment. In P. Hindley & N. Kitson (Eds.). Mental health and deafness. London: Whurr Publications.

Braden, J.P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York: Plenum Pub. Co.

Braden, J. P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantitative and qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 82-94.

Bradley-Johnson, S., & Evans, L.D. (1991). Psychoeducational assessment of hearing-impaired

students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Heller, P. J. (1990). Psycho-Educational assessment. In M. Ross (Ed.) Hearing-impaired children in the mainstream (pp. 61-81). Parkton, MD: York Press.

Levine, E. S. (1981). The ecology of early deafness: Guides to fashioning environments and

psychological assessments. New York: Columbia University Press.

Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, P.M., & Burley, S.K. (1990). Mental testing of the hearing-impaired child. In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.) Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 761-788). New York: Guilford Press.

Traxler, C.B. (1989). The role of assessment in placing deaf students in academic and vocational

courses. In T. E. Allen, B. W. Rawlings, & A. N. Schildroth (Eds.) Deaf students and the school-to-work transition (pp. 119-141). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub.

Vernon, M., & Alles, B. F. (1986). Psychoeducational assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing children and adolescents. In P. J. Lazarus & S. S. Strichart (Eds.), Psychoeducational evaluation of children and adolescents with low-incidence handicaps (pp. 103-123). Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton, Inc.

A developmental, functional, integrated approach to assessment often is the goal of professionals working with very young deaf children. In order to make a worthwhile appraisal of the child's skills and learning processes, evaluators have used approaches ranging from the structured use of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development - Second Edition (1993) to the more interactive play-based assessments, such as Linder's Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (1990).

Some evaluators report beginning the assessment with a structured instrument such as the Bayley or the Central Institute for the Deaf Preschool Performance Scale (CID) (1984); then moving to a more developmental measure such as those listed in this test review; and finally moving to a play-based approach, in order to develop a complete picture of the child's skills, abilities, and functional level.

For other evaluators, the play-based approach has become the instrument of choice for toddlers and preschoolers. Linder (1990) writes of her approach:

"Transdisciplinary play-based sessions provided information on the child's developmental skills and learning style, and not only translated into objectives for the child, but also elucidated intervention strategies for the teams that worked with the child. The child-centered approach to assessment provided a direct link to child-centered approaches to intervention" (p. x).

Whatever approach is chosen for working with young deaf and hard of hearing children, it is essential that the evaluator have a firm foundation in developmental work with young children and an understanding of the communication issues created by the fact of hearing loss.

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT

WITH DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CHILDREN AND YOUTH

I. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR MEASURES

II. RATING SCALES: BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL SKILLS

III. SELF CONCEPT AND OTHER SELF REPORT SCALES

IV. DRAWING/PROJECTIVE TESTS

Developed by:

Anne B. Spragins, Ph.D.

Lynne Blennerhasset, Ed.D

Psychology Department

Gallaudet University

800 Florida Avenue, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002

Yvonne Mullen, Ed.D.

Division of Psychology

CLARKE - School for the Deaf/Center for Oral Education

Round Hill Road

Bradley, R. H. (April, 1987). General and specific aspects of the physical environment: Relationships with development in handicapped children ages 1 to 10. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.

Klansek-Kyllo, V., & Rose, S. (1985). Using the Scale of Independent Behavior with hearing-impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 130 (6), 533-537.

4. MEADOW/KENDALL SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORIES FOR DEAF AND HEARING-IMPAIRED STUDENTS (1983)

PUBLISHER

Harris Communications

15159 Technology Dr.

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Ph: 888-257-5160 TDD: 800-582-9237

FAX: 612-906-1099

E-mail: mail@harriscom.com

Web site: www.harriscom.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Two inventories are included in the one package: the School-Age Form and the Preschool Form.

The School-Age Form consists of a 59 item behavior check list for children ages 7 to 21 years. Raw scores are converted to percentiles on the three scales: social adjustment, self image, and emotional adjustment.

The Preschool Form consists of 49 items for children ages 36 months to 83 months. Raw scores are converted to percentiles on the four scales: communicative behaviors, dominating behaviors, developmental lags, compulsive behaviors.

NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS

Teachers or other school personnel familiar with the child are asked to rate behaviors on a 5 point scale of: " Very True (description of behavior you have observed) to "Does not apply". The rater is asked to use as a reference all students of the same age regardless of whether they have a hearing loss or not.

NORMS

Over 2000 hearing impaired children in residential and day school programs across the United States were used as the normative population for the School-Age Form and over 857 hearing impaired children for the preschool form.

ADVANTAGES

1. Relies on observable behaviors.

2. Can identify developmental problems.

3. Does not necessarily require sign language skills.

4. Can be administered by teachers.

5. Taps particular behaviors related to hearing impairment in some items.

6. Scoring is fairly straight forward.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Reliability and validity are fairly low on the School-Age form and no information provided for the Preschool form.

2. Depends on rater's training in identifying behaviors in some instances.

3. Individual definitions of particular behavior may vary from the test constructor's definition.

4. The factors used in scoring were generated by factor analysis and face validity. Research is needed to confirm the stability of the factors for both scales.

5. The naming of the scales for the Preschool Form tends to focus on negative rather than positive behaviors, e.g., "anxious", "dominating", which could bias teachers to look for pathology instead of healthy development.

6. The special deafness items on the Preschool Form should be interpreted very carefully as there are only three.

7. The Social Adjustment Scale may "average" together behavior issues and interaction style issues.

8. On the Preschool Scale some items are scored high for positive and low for negative and other items are scored the reverse, thus, interpreting the scored results can be confusing.

REFERENCES

Cates, D.S., & Shontz, F.C. (1990). Role-taking ability and social behavior in deaf school children. American Annals of the Deaf, 135(3), 217-222.

Lytle, R.R., Feinstein, C., & Jonas, B. (1987). Social and emotional adjustment in deaf adolescents after transfer to a residential school for the deaf. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(2), 237-241.

Meadow, K. P. (1983). An instrument for assessment of social-emotional adjustment in hearing-impaired preschoolers. American Annals of the Deaf, 128(6), 826-834.

Meadow, K.P., & Larabee, G. (1982). The feeling wheel: A sharing activity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15, 18-21.

Meadow, K.P., & Dyssegaard, B., (1983). Teachers' ratings: An American-Danish comparison. American Annals of the Deaf, 128(7), 900-908.

Spragins, A.B. (1985, April). Preschool assessment and deaf children: Using the Meadow-Kendall Inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Zwiebel, A. (1986). A comparison of hearing-impaired students in Israel, Denmark, and the United States. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 9 (2), 109-118.

5. CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (ACHENBACH) (1991, 1993)

PUBLISHER

Child Behavior Checklist

University Medical Education Associates

1 South Prospect Street

Burlington, VT 05401-3456

Ph: 802-656-8313

FAX (802) 656-2602

E-mail: Checklist@uvm.edu

Web site: www.uvm.edu/~cbcl/

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) assesses the behavioral problems and competencies of children age 2 to 18 years through the use of six different free response inventories assessing behavior from four perspectives: parent report, teacher report, youth report, and direct observation. CBCL/2-3 and

CBCL/4-18 are checklists be to completed by parents for children age 2 to 3 years and age 4 to 18 years, respectively.

The Teacher's Report Form (TRF) -- appropriate for children ages 5 through 18 -- contains the teachers' ratings of many of the problems rated by parents plus additional items appropriate for teachers.

The Direct Observation Form (DOF) includes 96 problem items scored on 4-step rating scales and asks the observer to write a description of the child's behavior as it occurs over a 10 minute period and rate problems observed during that period, and provides for scoring on-task behavior at 1-minute intervals.

The Youth Self-Report gathers information from the child (ages 11 through 18 years) concerning the same competence and problem items as on the CBCL/4-18. The Semistructured Clinical Interview (SCIC) provides guidance for an experienced interviewer working with children ages 6 through 11 years and is recommended only for professionals experienced with the age group.

There are two broad-band factors (Internalizing and Externalizing Syndromes) and additional narrow-band factors for the parent and teacher version of the checklist.

NORMS

Each of the checklists were derived on a large group of referred children and normed on a large group of nonreferred children: CBCL/2-3 normed on 368 nonreferred children; CBCL/4-18 normed on 2368; YSSSR normed on 1315 nonreferred youths; TRF normed on 1391 nonreferred students nonreferred children. No norms are provided for deaf or hard of hearing children.

ADVANTAGES

1. The checklist as a system provides information about the child's behavior from multi-sources, i.e., home, school, and self-assessment and multi-format, e.g., informant report, self-report, and observation.

2. The system is an empirically derived system which has the advantage of placing the individual in the context of his/her peers and comparing according to age and sex. Achenbach has two broad-band factors, Externalizing (under controlled) behavior and Internalizing (overcontrolled) behavior.

3. Both hand-scoring templates and computer-scoring are available. Hand-scored and computer scored profiles which provide an overview of the child/youth's behavior are available and show how problems cluster for an individual and comparisons to age/sex group norms.

4. All versions of the checklist have sound psychometric properties.

5. There is a 1993 bibliography of published studies using the checklist which includes over 1000 studies, making it an excellent research tool.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research evidence of the appropriateness of the checklist for use with deaf or hard of hearing children and youth.

2. The manual reports that the Youth Self-Report can only be filled out for youths having 5th grade reading skills or can be administered orally. Language level may be a problem for some deaf or hard of hearing students, but we have no evidence on the topic.

3. Ordering the various checklists is a bit complicated as the order form offers a myriad of choices in too small a space.

Furstenberg, K., & Doyal, G. (1994). The relationaship between emotional-behavioral functioning and personal characteristics on performance outcomes of hearing impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 139 (4), 410-419.

Henggeler, S., Watson, S., & Whelan, J. (1990). Peer relations of hearing impiared adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15(6), 721-731.

Raymond, K., & Matson, J. (1989). Social skills in the hearing impaired. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(3), 247-258.

Sullivan, P., Scanlan, J., Brookhouser, P., & Schulte, L., (1992). The effects of psychotherapy on behavior problems of sexually abused deaf children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16(2), 297-307.

Van Eldik. T.Th. (1994). Behavior pronlems with deaf Dutch boys. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, (4). 394-399.

6. BEHAVIOR RATING PROFILE - SECOND EDITION (1990)

PUBLISHER

Pro-Ed

8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.

Austin, TX 78758

Ph: 800-897-3203

FAX: 512-451-3246

Web site: www.proedinc.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Behavior Rating Profile - Second Edition (BRP-2) is a battery of six instruments designed to evaluate student's behaviors at home, in school, and in interpersonal relationships. The authors contend that the BRP-2 "...is an ecologically founded assessment tool not a complete appraisal system" (Manual p. 4). The scales include three self-rating scales of 20 items each requiring a "True" or "False" response: the Student Rating Scales for home, school and peers; a Teacher and a Parent Rating scale of 30 items each with a four point response e.g., "Very Much Like the Student"; and a Sociogram which uses a peer nomination technique in order to incorporate peers' perceptions of the target student.

The scales are appropriate for students ages 6-6 through 18-6 years.

The instruments of the BRP-2 are all norm-referenced with scores reported as standard scores (X=10, SD=3) and percentile ranks.

NORMS

The normative sample on the various scales of the BRP-2 included 2000 students: the Student Rating Scales was normed on 2682; the Parent Rating Scale normed on 1948; the Teacher Rating Scale normed on 1452; and the Sociogram normed on all of the members of the target student's class. No norms are reported for deaf or hard of hearing students.

ADVANTAGES

1. The scales provide a perception of the child's behavior in a variety of settings and from a variety of respondents leading to a measure of adaptive fit between the child and the environment in the opinion of the respondents.

2. The scales are psychometrically sound.

3. They provide useful information to target goals for change and intervention.

4. Although there are six instruments in the BRP-2 battery, the examiner may choose to use only the ones that are pertinent to the question at hand concerning a child -- the manual gives guidance on selection.

3. There is a Spanish language version of the BRP-2 with both Mexican and U.S. norms.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research information concerning the use of these scales with deaf or hard of hearing children.

2. The language level on the scales appears to be appropriate for a variety of deaf or hard of hearing children, but we have no evidence to support this appearance.

7. CONNERS' RATING SCALES - REVISED (1997)

PUBLISHER

Pro-Ed

8799 Shoal Creek Blvd.

Austin, TX 78758-6897

Ph: 800-897-3203

FAX: 512-451-3246

Web site: www.proedinc.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

There are three rating scales, each with a short and long version: Conners' Teacher Rating Scales (CTRS-R:S, short; CTRS-R:L, long) and the Conners' Parent Rating Scales (CPRS-R:S, short; and CPRS-R:L, long). The Teacher Scale was originally designed to help identify attention deficit/hyperactive children but has proven useful for identifying other clinical patterns of behavior, e.g., conduct problem, anxious-passive, asocial. The Parent Scale characterizes such behavior patterns as conduct problem, learning problem, psychosomatic, anxiety, etc. Either teacher or parent indicates the degree to which the child exhibits the behaviors by rating each on a 4-point scale. The Conners-R also includes adolescent self-report scales, long and short versions (CASS:L and CASS:S).Raw scores are converted to factor scores which are provided as T-scores (X=50, SD=10) then plotted on the Profile Form.

The scales are appropriate for ages 3 through 17 years.

NORMS

Normative information for the Conners is found in a variety of earlier versions of the scale and in research studies. The original version (1970) included a sample of 683 children between the ages of 6 and 14. A later study in 1982 used a stratified random sample of 9583 Canadian school children as a sample. No normative information is provided for deaf or hard of hearing students.

ADVANTAGES

1. The scales have been found to be convenient for externalizing types of problems.

2. The scales may be either hand scored or administered, scored, and interpreted via computer software.

3. Spanish language record forms are now available.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research evidence concerning the use of the Conners with deaf or hard of hearing students.

2. Technical information, e.g., standardization, reliability, and validity is difficult to categorize as the instrument has been used in a research edition for years without clear differentiation as to whether the short or long form was being used. The 1990 manual summarizes past research findings but continues to leave one unsure about the psychometric properties of the test; one hopes the new technical manual (1997) is the improvement advertisers claim.

8. BASC: BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR CHILDREN (1995)

PUBLISHER

AGS

4201 Woodland Road

P.O. Box 99

Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796

Ph: 800-328-2560

FAX: 612-786-9077

E-mail: ags@skypoint.com

Web site: www.agsnet.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) is a coordinated system of instruments that evaluates behaviors, thoughts, and emotions of children and adolescents. The three core instruments are: Teacher Rating Scale, Parent Rating Scale, and Self-Report of Personality -- also included is a Structured Developmental History and Student Observation System. Scores provided are composite scores, T scores, and percentiles by gender and age for general population and clinical norm samples.

For the Teacher and Parent Rating Scales (TRS and PRS) composite scores are provided for: Behavioral Symptoms Index, Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, School Problems, and Adaptive Skills. For the Self-Report Scales of Personality (SRP) composite scores are provided for: Emotional Symptoms Index, School Maladjustment, Clinical Maladjustment, Personal Adjustment.

The BASC offers a hand-scored format and two computer scoring possibilities: BASC enhanced ASSIST, which scores and interprets the three Core Instruments on an unlimited usage basis, and the BASC-Plus Software, which scores 50 administrations of any combination of the three Core Instruments. BASC Plus also offers on-line administration.

The BASC is appropriate for ages 4 through 18 years.

NORMS

The general-population norm sample included a complex overlap between the norm samples for the TRS, PRS, and SRP tapping the 4 to 18 years population (5000+ students) in a geographically diverse 116 testing sites. A representative proportion of exceptional children were included in the sample but "... relatively few children with diagnosed speech/language disabilities are represented in the samples" (BASC Manual, 1992, p. 89). No deaf or hard of hearing students are reported in the sample.

The clinical norm sample consists of children being served in school or clinical settings for emotional or behavioral problems. Separate composite norm tables are provided for the Clinical and General samples because, "When comparing composite norms for the General and Clinical sampales, however, the differences (although minor) were large enought to suggest that common norms should not be used" (BASC Manual, 1992, p. 99).

USAGE WITH DEAF STUDENTS

The BASC is a new instrument with promise for measuring aspects of behavior and personality, adaptive and problematic, and behaviors linked to ADD and ADHD. However, to date we have no information about the use of this instrument with deaf and hard of hearing youngsters.

9. SOCIAL SKILLS RATING SYSTEM (1990)

PUBLISHER

AGS

4201 Woodland Rd.

P.O. Box 99

Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796

Ph: 800-328-2560

FAX: 612-786-9077

E-mail: ags@skypoint.com

Web site: www.agsnet.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) provides a standardized, norm-referenced, instrument for use as a multi-rater assessment of student social behaviors that have an impact on teacher/student relations, peer acceptance and academic performance. The scales sample behavior in the three domains of Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Academic Competence. In the domain of Social Skills, subscales are: cooperation, assertion, responsibility, empathy, and self-control; in the domain Problem Behaviors subscales are: externalizing, internalizing, and hyperactivity.

Items on each scale are scored on the basis of frequency, i.e., "How often" [never, sometimes, very often] and importance, i.e., "How Important?" [not important, important, critical]. Raw scores are converted to descriptive Behavior Levels and to Standard Scores (X=100, SD=15) with SEM's and two confidence levels provided and to percentile rank.

The SSRS components include three behavior rating forms: teacher, parent and student (self-report). The teacher and parent forms are available for preschool (ages 3-5); elementary level (grades 3-6); and secondary (grades 7-12). Form completion time is approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

NORMS

The SSRS was standardized on a national sample of 4170 children with a substantial representation of special education students. Types of handicapped students included in the sample were LD, Behaviorally Disordered, Mentally Handicapped, and Other. In the "Other" category which was 6% to 8% of the group, depending on the scale, were a few "hearing-impaired" students.

ADVANTAGES

1. The SSRS emphasizes positive behaviors, or prosocial skills.

2. National norms are provided on a diverse sample of nonhandicapped and handicapped students and the standardization representation is impressive.

3. Norms are provided for elementary handicapped girls and boys for the standard scores for the Teacher Rating Scale. Since a few hearing impaired students were included in this category, the examiner may decide to use these norms rather than the regular norms. Handicapped norms are not provided for the secondary level Teacher Rating Scale.

3. An Assessment-Intervention Record Form summarizes and integrate assessment results and serves to facilitate the selection of appropriate target behaviors for intervention and provides a link between assessment results and intervention strategies.

4. The scales are sensitive to developmental differences among children and the situations in which raters and children interact.

5. The manual provides a wealth of information on scoring, assessment, basic intervention issues and practices and all packaged in a readable fashion.

6. Computerized scoring and reporting is available with the software program SSRS ASSIST.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Although the scales appear to be quite useful for deaf and hard of hearing students, no research is available to support this opinion at the present time.

Spragins, A.B., & Anthony, S. (March, 1998). Deaf and hearing student's social skills: Are they different? Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists in Orlando, FL.

10. PIERS-HARRIS CHILDREN'S SELF-CONCEPT SCALE - REVISED (1984)

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Services

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Piers-Harris is an 80-item, self-report questionnaire designed to assess how children and adolescents feel about themselves. It is composed of six subscales: Physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, intellectual and school status, behavior, happiness and satisfaction, and popularity. The child provides a "yes" or "no" response as to whether each item applies to them. Summary scores give an overall measure of self-concept and cluster scores in T-scores (X=50, SD=10) and percentiles.

The Piers-Harris is intended for use with children and adolescents, ages 8 to 18 years.

NORMS

The normative sample consisted of 1183 school children ranging in age from 4 through 12 years from a public school system in a small town in Pennsylvania. The norms are based on data collected from this sample in the early 1960's. No deaf or hard of hearing children were reported in the sample.

ADVANTAGES

1. Examiners have found this a fairly easy tool to use to get a "feeling" for a child's perception of self.

2. Either hand or computer scoring is available as is a computerized interpretive report that profiles the child's strengths and weaknesses.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no information as to the appropriateness of the scale with deaf or hard of hearing children.

2. The norms are quite old, are limited in the population sampled, and even the manual states that they should be used with caution.

3. The manual cautions that "...children with low verbal ability due to bilingual background, organic impairment, or moderate to severe mental retardation will have difficulty completing the scale" (p. 3).

4. The scale is not recommended for youngsters who are hostile, uncooperative, or have disorders in their thinking such that their responses will not accurately reflect their feelings.

Bat-Chava, Y. (1993). Antecedents of self-esteem in deaf people: A meta-analytic review. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38(4), 221-234.

Leung, J., & Choi, C. (1990). Hearing-impaired children in public schools: A comparison study. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society. No. 24-25, 27-40.

Loeb, R., & Sarigiani, P. (1986). The impact of hearing impairment on self-perceptions of children. Volta Review. 88(2), 89-100.

11. MULTIDIMENSIONAL SELF CONCEPT SCALE (1992)

PUBLISHER

Pro-Ed

8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.

Austin, TX 78758-6897

Ph: 800-897-3203

FAX: 512-451-3246

Web site: www.proedinc.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS) assesses global self-concept and six context-dependent self-concept domains that are important in the social-emotional adjustment of youth and adolescents: Social, Competence, Affect, Academic, Family, and Physical. Each domain can be asses independently by administering any of the six 25-item scales. The total scale of 150 items takes approximately 20 minutes to administer and yields a global self-concept score reported as standard scores (X=100, SD=15), as T-scores (X=50, SD=10) and graphically displayed.

The MSCS is appropriate for youngsters ages 9 through 19 (grades 5 through 12).

NORMS

The MSCS was normed on a national sample of 2501 adolescents between the ages of 9 and 19. The sample was representative of the U.S. population. The manual reports statistical analyses were conducted to examine race, gender and age trends in self-concept. No norms are provided for deaf or hard of hearing students.

ADVANTAGES

1. The MSCS is a fairly new scale which has face validity and good psychometric support.

DISADVANTAGES

1. The MSCS is a fairly new scale with no research or anecdotal information concerning its use with deaf or hard of hearing students.

12. JOSEPH PRE-SCHOOL AND PRIMARY SELF CONCEPT SCREENING TEST (1979)

PUBLISHER

Stoelting Co.

620 Wheat Lane

Wood Dale, IL 60191

Ph: 630-860-9700

FAX: 630-860-9775

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The scale provides a general measure of self concept for ages 3 years 6 months to 9 years 11 months. It provides a model for monitoring social-emotional gains in early childhood programs. The scale includes 15 items, each item is a choice between two pictures. The child indicates with which picture he/she identifies more closely.

NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS

The child is to choose between two pictures representing a boy or girl doing something. The question is "Which is most like you?" The instructions can be pantomimed although pantomimed instructions were not in the standardization process.

NORMS

The normative group was over 1200 children residing in Illinois and included some children receiving special education services. No deaf or hard of hearing children were reported in the normative sample.

ADVANTAGES

1. Scoring allows both a "don't know" or ambivalent response and a "confusion" response. The "confusion" response is used when the child is unable to accurately distinguish between the pair of pictures that are presented.

2. The pictures have high interest value for children.

3. The picture choices allow deaf children to interact well with the examiner.

4. The test could be used as a screening tool to flag potential high risk adjustment or emotional problems.

5. Some examiners report they have laminated the cards and encouraged children to use erasable markers as their response.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no normative information for deaf or hard of hearing children.

2. Although face validity appears good, there is no information as to types of responses expected from deaf or hard of hearing children or whether varying populations of deaf children may have differential responses.

3. Although the normative population was varied in race and locale within Illinois, it may not be representative of a more varied United States population.

4. Although this test has been around for almost 15 years and has face validity for use with deaf or hard of hearing children, we rarely hear comments from examiners who have used it. We do not know whether it is not useful with deaf or hard of hearing children or simply unknown.

13. REVISED CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (1985)

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Services

12031 Wilshire Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scales (RCMAS) is a 37-item, self-report instrument designed to assess the level and nature of anxiety in children and adolescents. The scale consists of four subscales: Worry/Oversensitivity, Social Concerns/Concentration, Physiological Anxiety, Lie Scale. The child responds to each item with a "Yes" or "No" as to whether the sentence is descriptive of their feelings or actions. A standard T-score (X=50, SD=10) is provided for a Total Anxiety score and for each of the subscales.

The RCMAS is appropriate for children ages 6 to 19 years.

NORMS

The representative normative sample consists of 4972 children (500 of whom were black children) selected from 13 states in the U.S. Norms are provided by sex and by race (white and black) for the age group 6 to 19 years. No norms are provided for deaf or hard of hearing youngsters.

ADVANTAGES

1. The manual suggests that the RCMAS is intended to be an aid in the process of identifying level and nature of anxiety but not the sole determinant of a child's anxiety.

2. The manual suggests that examiners may use latitude in explaining items to children who have difficulty understanding the sentences. This approach was used in the standardization process and is already included in the variability measure. This approach also gives leeway for adaptation that may be necessary for some deaf or hard of hearing children.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research data to indicate how deaf or hard of hearing children respond to the scale.

14. SUICIDAL IDEATION QUESTIONNAIRE (1988)

PUBLISHER

The Psychological Corporation

Order Service Center

P.O. Box 839954

San Antonio, TX 78283-3954

Ph: 800-211-8378

FAX: 800-232-1223

Web site: www.hbem.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) is a self-report inventory designed to assess thoughts about suicide in adolescents and young adults. The SIQ provides a measure of the seriousness of suicidal thoughts in adolescents but not an estimate of risk for completed suicide or suicide attempt. There are two versions of the SIQ: a 30 self-report for senior high school students, grades 10, 11 and 12; and a 15 item junior high school version for grades 7, 8, 9 (SIQ-JR).

The SIQ is a continuous score measure, therefore the higher the score the greater the number and frequency of suicidal thoughts. A cutoff score has been developed to define a level of suicidal ideation which is considered to be clinically relevant and indicate need for further evaluation. Normative tables based on the standardization sample, broken down by grade and sex are provided.

NORMS

The SIQ normative sample included 2180 adolescents representing a racially and soicoeconomically heterogeneous group from one high school and two junior high schools in an urban/suburban community in the mid-western U.S.

ADVANTAGES

1. The manual provides useful information about the nature of suicidal behavior in adolescents, the role of the school, and as a guide for the evaluation of suicidal ideation in adolescents.

2. The manual recommends that since research has shown that there are some adolescents who are suicidal but not depressed, both depression and suicidal ideation should be examined when testing at-risk status in adolescents.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research or anecdotal information concerning the use of this questionnaire with deaf or hard of hearing students.

2. The standardization sample represents only one geographic location even though the manual states that it was well stratified in that location.

15. CHILDREN'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY (1992)

DISTRIBUTED BY:

The Psychological Corporation OR Western Psychological Services

Order Service Center 12031 Wilshire Boulevard

P.O. Box 839954 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

San Antonio, TX 78283-3954 Ph: 800-648-8857

Ph: 800-211-8378 FAX: 310-478-7838

FAX: 800-232-1223

Web site: www.hbem.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI) is a 27 item self-rating scale for school-aged children and youdth with at least a first-grade reading level. The scale is intended to measure cognitive, affective, and behavioral signs of depression. The student is asked to choose one of three sentences that best describes his/her experience in the past two weeks. Scores are provided by age and gender for: a Total Depression Score; and five empirically developed factors: Negative Mood, Interpersonal Problems, Ineffectiveness, Anhedonia, and Negataive Self-Esteem. Computer scoring is available.

The CDI is appropriate for students ages 7 through 17 years.

NORMS

No deaf or hard of hearing students are reported in the norm sample.

ADVANTAGES

1. For students with the required reading level (at least first grade), the scale response may help discriminate major depressive disorders from normal students.

2. The CDI can serve as a quick screening for depression and related problems.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no data to indicate how deaf or hard of hearing students typically respond to the CDI, therefore, it is difficult to make assumptions about the meaning of the results for those students.

2. In the hands of an examiner skilled in communicating with deaf students and knowledgeable about deafness issues, the CDI maybe a useful tool to explore signs of depression. It is important that the examiner make sure the student understands the questions, as the test is designed to be read.

16. REYNOLDS ADOLESCENT DEPRESSION SCALE (1987)

DISTRIBUTED BY:

The Psychological Corporation

Order Service Center

P.O. Box 839954

San Antonio, TX 78283-3954

Ph: 800-211-8378

FAX: 800-232-1223

Web site: www.hbem.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS) is a 30 item self report measure for screening individuals or groups of students in schools or clinical settings for depression.The RADS uses a four-point Likert-type response format in which the examiness indicate whether each symptom has occurred "almost never", "hardly ever," "sometimes," or "most of the time". Scores are provided in percentile for the total standardizatrion sample and by sex. A percentile rank conversion table is provided by grade.

The RADS is appropriate for students ages 13 through 18 years.

NORMS

The scale is based on six years of research and clinical data from a large number of adolescents. There is no indication that deaf or hard of hearing students were included in the standardization sample.

ADVANTAGES

1. Some clinicians working with deaf and hard of hearing students have reported this self report scalte to be useful. Out information is only "hear say" from a few sources.

DISADVANTAES

1. As with many other self report scales, we have no research data to guide our interpretation of response deaf or hard of hearing students provide on this scale. In the hands of a skilled examiner whose communication skills are excellent and matchs the population with whom he/she is working, and has a thorough understanding of deafness issues, the RADS may be a useful instrument.

17. THE ROTTER INCOMPLETE SENTENCES BLANK, SECOND EDITION (1992)

PUBLISHER

The Psychological Corporation

Order Service Center

P.O. Box 839954

San Antonio, TX 78283-3954

Ph: 800-211-8378

FAX: 800-232-1223

Web site: www.hbem.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Rotter uses sentence completion as a method of probing personality. The studentr is asked 40 sentences for which only the first word or words are supplied. The assumption, as with other projective techniques, is that the student's own wishes, desires, fears, and attitudes will be reflected in the completed sentences.

Incomplete sentence blanks are provided for high school, college, and adult.

NORMS

The manual claims that the Second Edition provides current normative data, scoring criteria and case studies. No information is given on expectations for use of the technique with deaf or hard of hearing students. Cut off scores are based on adjusted and non-adjusted samples.

ADVANTAGES

1. Examiners who have the appropriate training in use of projective techniques, are familiar with the deaf and hard of hearing population, and are fluent in communicating with deaf students in the student's chosen mode of communication, find the incomplete sentence format useful in interview.

2. Some examiners report creating their own version of incomplete sentences to reflect the experiences with their local population.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no research data concerning the use of this instrument with deaf or hard of hearing students, therefore it is difficult to evaluate the importance or meaning of information received in an interview.

18. BENDER VISUAL MOTOR GESTALT TEST (1938)

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

BOOKS FOR SCORING:

Koppitz, E. (1964). The Bender-Gestalt Test for young children, Vol 1. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Koppitz, E. (1975). The Bender-Gestalt Test for young children, Vol 2. New York: Grune and Stratton.

MODIFIED VERSION OF BENDER-GESTALT FOR PRESCHOOL & PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

The Modified Version of the Bender-Gestalt Test for Preschool & Primary School Children (1989).

Available from:

Pro-Ed

8700 shoal Creek Boulevard

Ausstin, TX 78757-6897

Ph: 800-897-3203

FAX: 512-451-3246

Web site: www.proedinc.com

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Bender consists of nine test cards with abstract designs which the child is to copy, one at a time, on a blank sheet of paper. According to Koppitz (1975) the test is one of visual-motor integration which can be scored using her Developmental Scoring System for children ages 5 to 11 years. Koppitz (1975) also discusses the use of the Bender Test as a projective instrument and suggests that Emotional Indicators (EIs) on the Bender can be used to identify children with or without emotional problems.

The Modified Version of the Bender Gestalt (Brannigan & Brunner, 1989) makes use of the same Bender cards but only Figures A, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are administered. A Qualitative Scoring System (using a 6 point rating scale for each production) is provided for children ages 4-6 to 8-5 years. The modified test kit is available with manual and forms from Pro-Ed as of 1996.

NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS

The child is shown one card at a time and asked to copy on a blank sheet of paper with no time limit on the test.

NORMS

Koppitz (1975) Developmental Scoring System provides norms for regular hearing children ages 5-0 to 11-11.

The Modified Version was standardized on a sample of 994 children aged 6-6 to 8-5 from nine schools in northeastern New York State.No norms are provided for deaf or hard of hearing children in either version.

ADVANTAGES

1. The test is relatively non-verbal.

2. Administration is easy.

3. It provides an estimate of visual-motor development.

3. The Qualitative Scoring System used in the Modified Version is an extension and refinement of research going back to Bender.

4. Provides an opportunity to observe the youngster's approach to visual-motor type tasks and problem solving strategies if the task proves difficult.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Although research using the instrument abounds, validity and reliability numbers remain inconclusive.

2. Interpretation of results, although guides are provided, is subjective.

3. No norms are provided for deaf or hard of hearing children.

4. There is little research to indicate whether deaf or hard of hearing children respond similarly to hearing children on this test.

5. The assumption is that deaf and hard of hearing children find the instructions for this test self-evident. That assumption has not been submitted to controlled study.

6. The normative data for the Modified Version is based primarily on White, lower middle to middle class children from one geographic area, therefore caution should be used in interpreting the scores for other groups of children.

REFERENCES

Bolton, B. (1972). Quantification of two projective tests for deaf clients. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 28(4), 554-556.

Bolton, B., Donoghue, R., & Langbauer, W. (1973). Quantification of two projective tests for deaf clients: A large sample validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(2), 249-250.

Buckley, P. (1978). The Bender-Gestalt Test: A review of reported research with school age

subjects. Psychology in the Schools, 15(3), 327-338.

Getz, M., & Vernon, M. (1986). Brain damage in deaf vocational rehabilitation clients. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 20 (1), 1-3.

Gilbert, J. G., & Levee, R. F. (1967). Performance of deaf and normally hearing children on the Bender-Gestalt and the Archimedes Spiral Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 1059-1066.

Johnson, K. A. (1975). The relationship between emotional indicator scores on the Bender-Gestalt and teacher ratings on a behavior scale with young hearing impaired children (#76-9817). University of Utah: University Microfilms International.

Keogh, B. K., Vernon, M., & Smith, C. E. (1970). Deafness and visuo-motor functioning. Journal of Special Education, 4, 41-47.

19. DRAW-A-PERSON: SCREENING PROCEDURE FOR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (1991)

PUBLISHER

The Psychological Corporation

Order Service Center

P.O. Box 839954

San Antonio, TX 78283-3954

Ph: 800-211-8378

FAX: 800-232-1223

Web site: www.hbem.com

ADDITIONAL BOOKS FOR SCORING:

Koppitz, E.M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Draw A Person:SPED (DAP:SPED) is a nonverbal screening measure for identifying children and adolescents who may have emotional or behavioral disorders. It requires the child to draw three pictures (man, woman, and self) on three separate pages of the Record Form. The Examiner's Manual provides a precise script for the examiner for giving instructions.

The scoring system includes two types of criteria for items: eight dimensions of each drawing for the first type, and a rating of each drawing according to 47 specific items for the second type. Gender based standard scores (T-score), percentile ranks, and confidence intervals for three age groups are provided.

The DAP:SPED provides norms for ages 6 through 17 years.

NORMS

The DAP:SPED was standardized on 2269 students -- a sample representative of the U.S. population (based upon 1980 census) in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, geographic region, and socio-economic status. No deaf or hard of hearing students are reported in the sample.

ADVANTAGES

1. Drawing tests are easy to administer and nonthreatening for children.

2. Having the child produce a drawing serves as a good "ice breaker" in working with children.

3. Cut off scores are provided in the manual for three categories related to whether further assessment is: not indicated, indicated, or strongly indicated.

4. A self-instructional training module for scoring is included in the Manual.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There are no norms provided for drawings by deaf or hard of hearing children.

2. There is not enough research evidence to indicate how deaf or hard of hearing children perform on Draw A Person tests in general, and this scoring procedure particularly.

REFERENCES

Cates, J.A. (1991). Comparison of human figure drawings by hearing and hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 93(1), 31-39.

Johnson, G. (1989). Emotional indicators in the human figure drawings of hearing-impaired children: A small sample validation study. American Annals of the Deaf, 134(3), 205-208.

Jones, E., & Badger, T. (1991). Deaf children's knowledge of internal human anatomy. Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 252-260.

Gibbons, C.L. (1985). Deaf children's perception of internal body parts. Maternal Child Nursing Journal, 14, (1), 37-46.

Zwiebel, A. (1987). More on the effects of early manual communication on the cognitive development of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 132 (1), 16-20.

Zwiebel, A., & Wolff, A. B. (1988). Draw-A-Person as a reliable test for deaf children: Cross-Cultural and deaf-hearing comparisons. ACEHI Journal, 14 (3), 91-104.

20. HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWING TECHNIQUE

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

BOOKS TO ASSIST SCORING

Burns, R.C. Kinetic-House-Tree-Person Drawings: An interpretative manual. Western Psychological Services.

Buck, J. revised by W.L. Warren (1992). The House-Tree-Person projective drawing technique: Manual and interpretive Guide. Western Psychological Services.

Wenck, L.D. (1977) House-Tree-Person Drawings: An illustrated diagnostic handbook. Western Psychological Services.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The House-Tree-Person (H-T-P) is a projective drawing technique in which the child is asked to produce three drawings -- of a house, a tree, and a person. The child is then given an opportunity to describe, define, and interpret the drawings. In the Burns system, the child is asked to draw all three on the same page and to include "some kind of action".

The manual suggests that the H-T-P can be administered to anyone over the age of 3.

NORMS

Norms essentially consist of a number of books (available from Western Psychological Services) with qualitative analyses of drawings.

ADVANTAGES

1. Drawings are a quick and nonthreatening way to begin an assessment.

2. Children are presented an opportunity to communicate about their drawings.

3. The Burns system of adding a kinetic element to the drawing provides an interesting dimension to the interaction and additional scoring guidance.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is little research data using the H-T-P with deaf or hard of hearing children although it is often used. What are the expectations?

2. The H-T-P has the same disadvantages as other projective techniques in the lack of objective scoring criteria.

REFERENCES

Davis, C. J., & Hoopes, J. L. (1975). Comparison of House-Tree-Person drawings of young deaf and hearing children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(1), 28-33.

Devore, J. (1986). A comparative study of the house-tree-person drawings of young hearing-impaired and normal children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Memphis State University.

Ouellette, S.E. (1988). The use of projective drawing techniques in the personality assessment of prelingually deafened young adults: A pilot study. American Annals of the Deaf, 133 (3), 212-218.

21. THE KINETIC FAMILY DRAWING SYSTEM FOR FAMILY AND SCHOOL

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

MANUAL FOR THE DRAWING SYSTEM

Knoff, H.M., & Prout, H.T. (1990). The Kinetic drawing system for family and school: A Handbook. Western Psychological Services.

ADDITIONAL BOOKS ON KINETIC FAMILY DRAWING

Burns, R.C. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family Drawings research and application. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.F. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding children through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1972). Actions, styles & symbols in Kinetic Family Drawing (K-F-D). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The child is asked to draw his or her whole family doing something in the family drawing and for a picture of the child interacting with relevant school figures in the school drawing. Following the drawing the child is questioned to clarify meaning.

In the Knoff and Prout system drawings are scored according to the presence or absence of specific characteristics, as listed in the Scoring Booklet. The drawings are interpreted using interpretive hypotheses provided in the Manual.

NORMS

Qualitative interpretations of drawings are offered as a standard in all the interpretive system. Clinical interpretations of the KFD offered by Burns and Kaufman (1970, 1972) include individuals between the ages of 5 and 20.

ADVANTAGES

1. Drawing tests may be used as screening devices for severe emotional problems.

2. The KFD is relatively non-verbal but the examiner must be psychologically sophisticated, knowledgeable about deafness issues, and able to communicate with deaf or hard of hearing children in order to expand the drawing session to discussion of what is happening in the pictures.

3. Drawings offer an opportunity to observe the youngster's behavior when given a task.

DISADVANTAGES

1. As in many projective techniques, the KFD has questionable validity and reliability.

2. Subjective interpretations on any of the drawing tests can lead to incorrect diagnostic statements.

3. No normative information is available for deaf or hard of hearing individuals.

4. Younger groups or individuals with communication difficulties may lack sufficient vocabulary to give precise answers when interrogation is used with the drawings, even though the examiner may be fluent in the communication mode used by the child.

5. The examiner must be thoroughly familiar with deafness and (in many instances) the sign communication system of the child in order to avoid misinterpreting a different language style as disjointed thought.

6. There is inadequate research to indicate expectations for deaf or hard of hearing individuals on the KFD.

22. ROBERTS APPERCEPTION TEST FOR CHILDREN (1982)

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Roberts Apperception Test for Children (RATC) provides a series of pictures illustrating children and adults engaged in everyday interactions, e.g., common situations, conflicts, and stresses in children's lives. There is a standard set of 27 stimulus cards of which only 16 are administered to a given child (a 1986 supplementary set of cards designed for black children is available). The youngster is asked to create stories describing what is happening in each situation, what led up to it, and how it will end. As with other projective techniques, interpretation of the RATC is based on the assumption that children, when present ambiguous drawings of children and adults in interaction, will project their thoughts and concerns.

Scoring consists of counting the presence or absence of specific characteristics in a two part system: profile scales and indicators, and the Interpersonal Matrix. Standard (T-scores) are provided for the Profile scales by age group.

The RATC is appropriate for children ages 6 to 15.

NORMS

The standardization sample (not stratified but an attempt at representation in terms of socioeconomic background) was a group of 200 children from three school districts in California.

ADVANTAGES

1. The stimulus pictures are specifically designed for children in the age groups suggested, are based on research with children, are consistent in their presentation, and have good face validity.

2. The RATC emphasizes everyday interpersonal events of contemporary life.

3. An objective scoring system, including normative data for a sample of 200 well-adjusted children, is provided and is said to yield high interrater agreement.

4. Because the test was standardized on a sample of well-adjusted children, it can be useful for assessing developmental changes and situational crises in otherwise normal children.

DISADVANTAGES

1. There is no normative nor research information concerning how deaf or hard of hearing children respond on the RATC.

2. The standardization sample for the RATC is small and geographically contained, which raises a question about the applicability of the normative scoring for groups not represented in the sample.

3. The use of this test is only appropriate for psychologist with a solid training background in the use of projective techniques, a thorough background in issues surrounding deafness, and fluent in the communication mode elected for use by the youngster.

23. TEMAS (TELL-ME-A-STORY) (1988)

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The TEMAS test is a multicultural thematic apperception test designed for use with minority and nonminority children and adolescents. There are two parallel forms, one designed for minority children in which the full-color stimulus cards show predominantly Hispanic and black individuals, and the other for nonminority children in which the cards depict mostly nonminority characters. Pictures on the cards reflect positive and negative emotions and interactions.

The TEMAS is scored for a variety of criteria representative of cognitive, affective, and intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. For the Quantitative Scales the scores for cards used are totaled and raw scores are converted into normalized T-scores (X=50, SD=10). Qualitative Indicators are determined using critical cutoff scores based on raw score at the 90th percentile (or above) of the normative sample.

The Temas is intended for use with children and adolescents ages 5 to 18 years.

NORMS

The TEMAS was standardized on a sample of 642 children (including four ethnic/racial groups: whites, blacks, Puerto Ricans, and other Hispanics) from public schools in the New York City area. The manual CAUTIONS that the a stratified sampling procedure was not used in subject selection therefore, "... all normative interpretations of TEMAS scores should be made with appropriate caution by the clinician" (p. 35). The manual also states that "... norms provided for the TEMAS are based on the assumption that the child is free from serious sensory or intellectual handicaps" (p. 5).

ADVANTAGES

1. The clinician who is trained in the administration, inquiry, and interpretation process used in apperception tests, and can fluently communicate with deaf youngsters in their preferred mode of communication, may find this test a useful addition to the clinical interview process. Given the caution in the manual, the Quantitative Scale should not be used.

DISADVANTAGES

1. The individual being tested must be a fluent language user (whether a spoken or a sign language system).

2. The examiner must have excellent expressive and receptive communication skills in the language used by the individual being tested.

3. The manual warns that, although the test is intended for ages 5 to 18, normative interpretation is only suggested for ages 5 to 13 as normative studies for the age group 14 to 18 are not yet complete.

4. The manual warns that the norms are not for children with serious sensory handicaps and there is no research indicating the expectations for responses from deaf or hard of hearing individuals on the test.

5. Like many projective tests, the TEMAS has a number of specific reliability and validity limitations which need to be kept in mind when test results are being interpreted.

24. THE RORSCHACH: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM

PUBLISHER

Western Psychological Service

Publishers and Distributors

12031 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Ph: 800-6648-8857

FAX: 310-478-7838

TEST PLATES SHOULD BE ORDERED UNDER THE NAME: RORSCHACH INKBLOT TEST

SCORING SYSTEMS

Exner, J.E. (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 1.

Exner, J.E. (1978). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 2: Current research and

advanced interpretation.

Exner, J.E. (1982). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 3: Assessment of children and adolescents.

ADDITIONAL SCORING AIDS FROM:

Rorschach Workshops

P.O. Box 9010

Asheville, NC 28815-9010

Exner, J.E. (1990). A Rorschach workbook for the comprehensive system (3rd ed.). Asheville, NC:Rorschach Workshops.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The complete set of original plates consists of ten cards containing inkblots which are presented to the individual being tested for a response. Extensive scoring systems have been developed -- all requiring a well trained examiner. The three-volume Comprehensive System developed by Exner includes a comprehensive overview of the Rorschach Technique, including administration, scoring, and interpretation, research, and the usefulness of the Rorschach with children and adolescents.

NORMS

In Exner Comprehensive system the 1982 normative sample for children from age 5 to age 16 included 1580 protocols, with a total of 239 (15%) of the protocols discarded form the sample because of a low R.

ADVANTAGES

1. Those examiners trained and skilled in using this method of assessment claim to gain valuable insight useful in working with their clients.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Younger children lack sufficient vocabulary to give precise answers and many deaf youngsters may lack the communication skill to give adequate answers.

2. The effectiveness of the instrument depends on the examiner's skill in the use of the Comprehensive System, fluency in communication with deaf and hard of hearing youngsters, and understanding of cultural/educational/life issues in deafness.

3. There is little reliable research that indicates the type of responses that can reasonable be expected from deaf or hard of hearing youngsters.

REFERENCES

Altable, J. R. (1947). The Rorschach psychodiagnostic as applied to deaf-mutes. Rorschach

Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques, 11, 74-79.

Bindon, M. (1957). Rubella deaf children. A Rorschach study employing Monroe Inspection

Technique. British Journal of Psychology, 48, 4.

Donoghue, R. J. (1968). The deaf personality--A study in contrasts. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 2(3), 37-51.

Gibbins, S. (1996). Reliability of interpreted Rorschach scores. Manuscript in preparation, Gallaudet University.

Goetzinger, C. P., Ortiz, J. D., Bellerose, B., & Buchan, L. G. (1966). A study of the S.O. Rorschach with deaf and hearing adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 14(3), 510-522.

Goldsmith, L., & Schloss, P.J. (1986). Diagnostic overshadowing among school psychologists

working with hearing impaired learners. American Annals of the Deaf, 131(94), 305-309.

Meacham, F.B., Kline, M.M., Stovall, J.A., Sands, D.I. (1987). Adaptive behavior and low incidence handicaps: Hearing and visual impairments. The Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 183-196.

Narayanan, S. (1983). Some perspectives of institutionalized handicapped. Psychological Research Journal, 7 (1), 19-23.

Neyhus, A. I. (1962). The personality of socially well adjusted deaf as revealed by projective tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University: Evanston.

Rattray, S. (1988).Optimum performance on the Rorschach Inkblot Test for deaf subjects: Varying language administration conditions. Doctoral dissertation. California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.

Sachs, B. (1976). Some views of deaf Rorschacher on the personality of deaf individuals. Hearing Rehabilitation Quarterly, 2(1), 13-14.

Santistevan, E. (1996). A comparison of Rorschach profiles on Deaf subjects obtained using protocols obtained by transliteration of signed responses into English and protocols scored directly from ASL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gallaudet University.

Talkington, L., & Reed, K. (1969). Rorschach response patterns of hearing-impaired retardates. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29(2), 546.

Yachnik, M. (1986). Self-esteem in deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 131(4), 305-309.

Zucher, L. (1974). Rorschach patterns of a group of hard of hearing patients. Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques, 11, 68-73.