Gallaudet University

About: Gallaudet University is a education organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Sign language & American Sign Language. The organization has 381 authors who have published 669 publications receiving 19759 citations.

Scientific method: Statistical errors

Abstract: P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume.

Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf

Abstract: It is approaching a half century since Bill Stokoe published his revolutionary monograph, Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf It is rare for a work of innovative scholarship to spark a social as well as an intellectual revolution, but that is just what Stokoe's 1960 paper did. And it is indicative both of Stokoe's genius and of his commitment that he did not simply publish his groundbreaking work and then sit back to watch the revolutions unfold. He actively promoted important changes in at least three areas of social and intellectual life. First, and perhaps most important, his work, that was ultimately generally accepted as showing the signing of deaf people to be linguistic, supported significant changes in the way deaf children are educated around the globe. Second, his work led to a general rethinking of what is fundamental about human language; and, third, it helped to reenergize the moribund field of language origin studies. This truly revolutionary paper has been reprinted at least twice, in revised and original versions, since its initial release in 1960, and now, five years after Bill's death, it is good to see it once again brought before the general public.

Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States

Abstract: DEAF CHILDREN born to deaf parents are likely to grow up in a social, cultural, and linguistic milieu different from that in which children of hearing parents grow up (e.g., Erting 1994; Morford and Mayberry 2000; Padden and Humphries 1988; Schein 1989; Wilcox 1988). In the United States, deaf children of deaf parents may well have American Sign Language, rather than spoken English (or Spanish, French, Vietnamese, etc.), as their first language of fluency (also see Stuckless and Birch 1966; Harris 1978). Whereas severe or profound deafness is not a very common occurrence in the child population, intergenerational deafness is even rarer (e.g., Blanchfield et al. 1999; Niskar et al. 1998; Ries 1994; Schein and Delk 1974). In this article we address the question of the prevalence of "deaf-of-deaf" children within the overall group of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth.1 Our analysis questions the often-repeated statement that ten percent of deaf children are born to deaf parents (Schein 1989). The prevalence of deaf children of deaf parents has been discussed since the nineteenth century (see review by Moores 2001, pp. 89-100). As far back as the early 1800s, various American schools or agencies have undertaken the systematic collection of information about the hearing status of the parents of deaf students (see review by Best 1943, pp. 34-72). Not until the very end of the nineteenth century, however, was any effort made to provide an estimate of national prevalence (Fay 1898). Fay's work influenced the U.S. Census Bureau to include special supplements to collect data on the deafness of family members in 1910 and 1920. Unfortunately, these two early-twentieth-century national estimates were the only ones available until the Annual Survey of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth was initiated in 1968 (hereafter, the Annual Survey; see, for example, Rawlings 1971, 1973; Jordan and Karchmer 1986), followed by the National Census of the Deaf Population (NCDP) in 1972 (Schein and Delk 1974).2 Soon thereafter, in 1974, a study was conducted by the Office of Demographic Studies (ODS) at Gallaudet College using a subsample from the "National Achievement Test Standardization Program for Hearing Impaired Children" (see Jensema and Trybus 1978; Karchmer, Trybus, and Paquin 1978; Rawlings and Jensema 1977), which largely depended on the 1972-1973 Annual Survey for its sampling frame.3 The ODS distributed a special survey to a nationwide random sample of 1,362 students, to which nearly eight hundred families with deaf or hard of hearing children responded (some with more than one such child), that included a request for parental hearing status information. These national demographic studies have reported estimates of the proportion of deaf and hard of hearing children with one or more nonhearing parents ranging from three percent (2.2 percent in 1910 and 3.3 percent in 1920; Best 1943) to approaching nine percent (Rawlings and Jensema 1977). The variability in these estimates is due to differences in the groups being studied, to methodological differences, and, importantly, to differences in terminology. For example, in reporting its findings, the Annual Survey did not routinely distinguish between being deaf and hard of hearing until 1993, referring to both as "hearing impaired." For more than three decades now, there have been noteworthy efforts to identify the national prevalence of deaf children of deaf parents. However, as mentioned earlier, we more often learn how many "hearing impaired" children of "hearing impaired" parents there are. Using two consecutive Annual Surveys of the number of such students whose parents had "hearing loss before age 6," Rawlings (1971, 1973) presents detailed tabulations by parental gender. The value of knowing parental gender in either year, important but unmentioned, is to indicate that it was far more common to have unavailable data for the father than for the mother. Otherwise, gender identification did not reveal remarkable patterns. …

The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

Abstract: This article presents a rich context of information for interpreting Stanford Achievement Test scores and for describing the achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing students The publisher's national norming of the Stanford Achievement Test provides a context of actual performance of hearing students The publisher's Performance Standards provide a context of expectations for hearing students as determined by a panel of experts The Gallaudet Research Institute's norming of the test on a national sample of deaf and hard-of-hearing students provides a context of test performance by this special population A smaller subsample of the deaf and hard-of-hearing students who take the same test levels as hearing students provides an additional reference group with respect to the Performance Standards Information from these sources is brought together into two graphical contexts to address these questions: Can the normative data from the publisher's national standardization of the test with hearing students, and the normative data from the GRI's national norming of the test with deaf and hard-of-hearing students provide a useful context for the interpretation of individual test scores? Can they provide a useful way to examine achievement of groups of students? Can the new Performance Standards defined by the test publisher offer a useful context for test score interpretation for high-achieving deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide

Abstract: Part 1. The Landscape of Evaluation. 1. Introduction to Evaluation: Defining Terms and Ethical Considerations. 2. Framing Evaluation: Paradigms, Branches, and Theories. Part 2. Historical and Contemporary Evaluation Paradigms, Branches, Theories, and Approaches. 3. The Postpositivist Paradigm and the Methods Branch. 4. The Pragmatic Paradigm and the Use Branch. 5. The Constructivist Paradigm and the Values Branch. 6. The Transformative Paradigm and the Social Justice Branch. Part 3. Planning Evaluations. 7. Working with Stakeholders: Establishing the Context and the Evaluand. 8. Evaluation Purposes and Questions. 9. Evaluation Designs. 10. Data Collection Strategies and Indicators. 11. Stakeholders, Participants, and Sampling. 12. Data Analysis and Interpretation. Part 4. Implementation in Evaluation. 13. Communication and Utilization of Findings. 14. Meta-Evaluation and Project Management. 15. Perennial and Emerging Issues in Evaluation.