Advances in Cognition, Education, and Deafness

WAIS-R Verbal and Performance Profiles of Deaf Adolescents Referred for Atypical Learning Styles

WAIS-R Verbal and Performance Profiles of Deaf Adolescents Referred for Atypical Learning Styles Pamela Rush Lynne Blennerhassett Kenneth Epstein David Alexander It is estimated that 6% to 8.6% of hearing-impaired children and youth experience specific learning disabilities not attributed to mental retardation, . emotional/behavioral problems, or other sensorylhealth impairments (Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies 1988; Craig & Craig 1987). In one survey, 23% of a sample of over 7,500 hearing-impaired students were identified as learning disabled (Elliot, Powers & Funderburg 1988). Although these atypical learners represent the largest segment of multihandicapped hearing-impaired students, there are no specific definitions or agreedupon criteria to identify this special population. However, practitioners experienced with this population report the presence of atypical learning characteristics, including problems with memory, sequencing, sensory integration, fine/gross motor coordination, visual/tactile/kinesthetic processing, attention, and acquisition of nonverbal and verbal language, all differing from those of hearing-impaired peers (Funderburg 1982; Rowen 1987). In a national survey of programs that served 11,057 hearing-impaired students, atypical deaf learners were differentiated from nonreferral students on nine criteria: memory difficulties; attentional problems; perceptual problems; discrepancy between achievement and potential; language problems; unique learning styles; poor organizational skills; secondary The complete version of this paper is available in microfiche or hard copy from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Ask for Document No. ED 313 840. 82 WAIS-R Verbal and Performance Profiles ofDeafAdolescents 83 behavior problems; and inconsistent performance (Powers, Elliot & Funderburg 1987). In another national survey, Elliot and his colleagues (1988) identified five criteria unique to this population: processing problems; memory problems; atypicallanguage problems; discrepancy between IQ and achievement; and behavioral problems. Identification of learning-disabled hearing-impaired (LDHI) students is difficult due to the low incidence of such students and to ambiguities in defining learning disabilities among the general school-age population. Nevertheless, identification of LDHI students may be necessary to secure appropriate support services (Laughton 1989). Identification of LDHI students is also difficult due to lack of instrumentation and variability in rater judgments (Powers, Elliot, Fairbank & Monaghan 1988). Kachman and Rush (1988) recommend a multidisciplinary team approach, stressing that school psychologists, teachers, language/communication specialists, and audiologists pool data from their collective observations and formal/informal assessments. They stress the need for evaluators who are familiar with the effects of hearing impairment on language acquisition and achievement in order to discriminate atypical hearing-impaired learning styles. For hearing students, the Verbal and Performance Scales of the Wechsler Intelligence Tests have been identified as tools that aid in the discrimination of atypical learners. Kaufman (1979) identified the Freedom from Distractibility cluster (made up of the Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Coding subtests) as low-score groupings for hearing students with attentional and learning problems. Several studies report that the Distractibility cluster discriminates learning-disabled hearing students from their nondisabled peers (Lombard 1978; Stedman, Cortner, Lawles & Achterberg 1978; Petersen & Hart 1979). Groff and Hubble (1982) found the Distractibility factor was found to be somewhat inconsistent across the ages of 6 to 16 years, with the Picture Arrangement subtest loading along with Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Coding (Van Hagen & Kaufman 1975). With hearing-impaired students, the Wechsler Performance Scales are the most frequently used tests of intelligence-the WISC-R administered to children between the ages of 6-16 years; the WAIS-R administered to students above 16 years of age (Blennerhassett 1985; Gibbins 1989; Levine 1974; Spragins& Gibbins 1982). Studies suggest that the WAIS-R Performance Scale IQs of deaf adolescents are higher than those of hearing adolescents, with mean Performance IQs of 107 to 109 (Balow & Brill 1975; Blennerhassett, Moores, Hannah & Woolard 1988). Mean Verbal IQ scores of deaf adolescents, considered measures of achievement rather than intelligence, ranged from 82 to 91, with Arithmetic subtest scores typically higher than scores on the other Verbal Scale subtests (Blennerhassett 1987; Blennerhassett et al. 1988; Geers & Moog 1987; Hine 1970; Kohoutek, Pulda & Zemanova 1971). The purpose of the present study was to investigate the degree to which WAIS-R Verbal and Performance Scale profiles of atypical deaf learners differ from those reported for nonreferral deaf peers, and the degree to which the test profiles of atypical deaf students resemble those reported for atypical hearing students. 84 Cognitive Assessment METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 28 hearing-impaired students between the ages of 18 and 23 years, enrolled at Gallaudet University. Twenty-six of the students were enrolled as preparatory (or pre-freshman...