Cognition, Education, and Deafness: Directions for Research and Instruction

LPAD Applications to Deaf Populations

LPAD Applications to Deaf Populations Jeffery P. Braden The Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) (Feuerstein, 1979) advocates a test-teach-test model for assessing intellectual potential. The LPAD differs from traditional psychometric models both in its procedures (which require questioning the subject about responses and providing feedback to the subject about performances) and in the underlying psychological theory used to interpret cognitive behavior. A brief overview of the LPAD's theoretical underpinnings is provided in Keane's paper (see pp. 141-147). The focus here is upon clinical and theoretical issues raised by applying the LPAD to deaf populations. Clinical Issues LPAD techniques are recommended for the assessment of deaf children with multiple disabilities and deaf people from unusual experiential backgrounds (e.g., those from other cultures who have never attended a school program). The benefits of the LPAD are threefold: (a) the LPAD provides a systematic model for assessing a wide variety of cognitive functions; (b) the examiner tests, then teaches tasks to the subject, then tests again to determine the accessibility of the deficient functions to remediation attempts; and (c) the model and related test results provide a descriptive/prescriptive profile of the subject's capabilities, rather than a normative/labeling outcome. LPAD methods are uniquely superior to psychometric methods for assessing deaf children from nonstandard backgrounds because psychometric methods cannot be assumed to be valid for these deaf subjects; psychometric tests also produce classifications of dubious value. There are some problems in applying the LPAD to deaf children. The first major difficulty is communication. Because LPAD techniques assess the molecular (underlying) structure of cognitive performance, the examiner must question the subject about molar (overt) behaviors. This procedure is extremely difficult for deaf children from nonstandard backgrounds or those with multiple disabilities because they typically do not differentiate question forms (e.g., Why? vs. How?). The development of remediation attempts then presents the second major difficulty with LPAD use. Currently, few teachers are trained in the instructional program that parallels the LPAD '(Instrumental Enrichment [IE], Feuerstein, 1980). Those teachers who are trained in IE are not usually taught how to tailor IE to LPAD results. It remains to be seen how LPAD and IE techniques will compare to current approaches used to assess and then instruct low-functioning deaf children. The complete version of this paper is available in microfiche or hard copy from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Ask for Document No. ED 247 716. 148 Theoretical Concerns The theoretical assumptions underlying the LPAD have been invoked to explain group differences on standard intelligence (IQ) tests. LPAD theory assumes that cognitive skills are learned in the process of cultural transmission . Feuerstein (1979) suggested that minority children have more cognitive deficiencies because minority parents do not transmit their culture to their children. Similar reasoning (see Keane, pp. 141-147) has been cited to explain cognitive deficiencies in deaf children. The problem with this line of argument may be simply stated: Deaf children perform much better than minority children on nonverbal IQ tests. Because some deaf children theoretically experience less cultural transmission than ethnic minority groups (i.e., some deaf children of hearing parents are not exposed to certain forms of language until they enter school; some experience punitive parental interactions more often than their hearing peers; and all are members of a subculture different from their hearing parents), they would be expected to perform more poorly than minority peers. We have found that deaf children's nonverbal IQ performance is quantitatively similar to majority children's nonverbal performance, which contradicts the cultural transmission model of group differences (Braden, 1984). The implications of the preceding discussion are twofold. First, environmental explanations of minority children's lower mean nonverbal IQ's (e.g., dialect differences, parenting styles, etc.) are inadequate because they cannot simultaneously account for poor minority group performance and average deaf nonverbal IQ scores. Second, the contemporary tendency to characterize deaf children as a minority group in order to explain deaf/ hearing differences on cognitive measures should be subjected to careful scrutiny. Conclusions The LPAD promises to provide a valuable adjunct to current assessment techniques used with deaf children. This point is particularly applicable to those deaf children with unusual backgrounds and/or multiple disabilities. Although some difficulties exist in LPAD administration and in the educational application of LPAD results, LPAD techniques nonetheless are superior to traditional psychometric methods in some situations. It is therefore suggested that the time needed for LPAD training of professionals (a minimum of 2...