Early Childhood (Birth–5 years)

• Social-Emotional Assessment / Evaluation Measure (SEAM)– Measures social and emotional development in infants-pre-school. (quantitative)
• SPICE – Speech Perception Instructional Curriculum & Evaluation-designed to help you: evaluate a student’s speech perception abilities and plan auditory skills instruction. (qualitative)

Adolescents (12+ years)

• Listening Comprehension Test-Adolescent LCT-A:NU– evaluates a student’s abilities in listening comprehension skills, resulting in a Listening Comprehension Index.
• Social Language Development Test-Adolescent: Normative-Update measures students’ ability to make inferences and interpret and respond to social interaction. (Normative Data)

Key Points:

• Re-evaluation frequency: At least every 3 years, or sooner if conditions warrant or parents/teachers request it.
• Purpose: To determine continued eligibility and update educational needs.
• Consent requirement: If new standardized assessments or formal testing will be administered, Permission to Re-Evaluate must be obtained.
• If the re-evaluation relies solely on existing data (records review, teacher observations), consent may not be required—but parents must be notified.

The post Understanding Student Assessment: Key Concepts and Considerations for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Learners first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

When a student is found eligible for special education, they are introduced to supports and services that attempt to make educational programming equal to that received by typically developing and typically hearing students. In order to do this, comprehensive assessment is conducted to find the student’s strengths and weaknesses and address gaps in academic and functional achievement. Assessment for eligibility is different from assessment for progress monitoring, and it is also different from screening. Eligibility assessment is conducted by a multidisciplinary team and looks to establish areas in which the student needs additional targeted instruction in order to make progress, due to a qualifying disability. Once these areas are established, skill deficits are addressed by either a SMART goal, accommodation/modification, or a related service. Goals are then measured, in intervals, and reported periodically to the parents/guardians. Progress monitoring is the systematic process of collecting data on an IEP goal is used to assess a student’s performance academically, behaviorally, and functionally.

What are the benefits of progress monitoring?

• Documents student progress (or lack of it)
• Informs decisions about how students can be more effectively instructed
• Leads to more appropriate and effective instruction
• Supports better communication between educators and parents about the student’s progress

Why is progress monitoring necessary?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts to provide parents/guardians progress reports for students receiving special education, as often as schools provide regular progress reports to parents of students without IEPs. IEP goals are evaluated, and the IEP Team determines whether the child is making progress toward IEP goals. IEP Teams should use the periodic progress reporting to inform parents of their child’s progress. Parents and other IEP Team members should collaborate and partner to track progress appropriate to the child’s circumstances.

Progress monitoring and reporting aren’t the same. 

Monitoring a student’s progress is done every time a student and teacher are together.  Teachers monitor progress through observation, formative assessment, tally sheets, informal practice activities, and other informal ways to gain insight to whether the student is making progress.  Anecdotal notes are another way to document a teacher’s observation of skill development.  When it’s time to report the student’s progress, the teacher must gather the data and report the progress in a way that mirrors the goal on the student’s IEP.  For example, if a student was assessed and found to have skill deficits in the areas of auditory skill development, then a possible measurable annual goal could be:

 “After being read a story with 6-8 sentences, increasing in length and complexity to 12-14 sentences, TSW will be able to organize events in the story, with 80% accuracy from a baseline of 40%, in 3 consecutive trials, as assessed triweekly.” 

Reports of progress should include percentages and number of trials, as well as how the student was assessed for skill development (teacher made tests and quizzes, teacher observation of skill, etc.).  It’s confusing to the parents/guardians when a teacher reports progress but it’s not written in a way to make it clear how the student’s current progress compares to how the student was doing at the time of evaluation.  Using the goal above as an example, the teacher should report progress as a percentage, for each trial given during the progress monitoring interval, and should include the likelihood for the student to reach their goal in one annual school year.   

Steps for progress monitoring student goals: 

• Determine the student’s current level of performance
• Identify goals that will take place over time
• Measure the student’s performance on a regular basis
• Compare the expected progress to actual student performance
• Consider changes to instruction or services when student progress toward goals is either not being made or the goal has been met

How often will data be collected for each goal?

Data collection for progress monitoring depends on how often a student is seen for instruction.  If a student is seen daily, or weekly, then data collection can occur more often than a student who is seen biweekly or monthly.  Teachers use baseline scores to create realistic mastery level scores, which creates a goal line that shows the trajectory for progress to be made in intervals.  When the trend line doesn’t show progress or shows inconsistent progress, then teachers can adjust instructional approaches to meet the students’ needs.

Graphing data points

Here are two sample graphs to illustrate what graphed data points look like. Seven to twelve data points are needed to make statistically valid instructional decisions. Data must be collected regularly and frequently in order to have sufficient data points to make valid decisions.

Figure 1: Shows a trend line above the goal line. This indicates the student is making better than expected progress. The IEP team may want to consider setting a more challenging goal.   

Figure 2: Shows a trend line below the goal line. This indicates the student is not making progress as expected. The IEP team should consider whether an instructional change is needed to address the student’s lack of progress.

What if the trend line shows inadequate progress, in light of the student’s circumstances?

If a teacher is monitoring a student’s progress each session, through informal assessment like accuracy of student responses to questions, teacher observation, tally marking frequency of behaviors etc., then most often a teacher will be able to see if a strategy is working with a student.  Sometimes, when a teacher graphs a student’s scores, they will see that the trend line isn’t measuring up to the trajectory line.  Teachers should then adjust techniques and provide strategies that help the student move towards mastery.  

In summary, teachers use progress monitoring to help gauge the effectiveness of a student’s programming and gain insight if the student is making adequate progress towards IEP goals.  If the student’s progress is limited or seems to be progressing slower than expected, then monitoring information can help teachers gauge instructional practices and modify as necessary.  Progress Monitoring is both legally necessary to meet compliance and practically necessary to ensure students are progressing towards their goals.  

References:

Progress monitoring for IEP goals. What is an example of progress monitoring? Retrieved October 20, 2022, from

https://www.askresource.org/resources/progress-monitoring#:~:text=Steps%20for%20progress%20monitoring%20student,progress%20to%20actual%20student%20performance

Monitoring Progress – Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Wisconsin Department of Public Education. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/monitoring-progress-iep-checklist.pdf

Author: Michelle Andros

Click here to download this article

The post Progress Monitoring, What’s the Point? first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

The terms: child find, referral, evaluation and re-evaluation can cause an involuntary reaction of panic in teachers.  Just the THOUGHT of ASSESSING a child for a disability instills immediate concern that you just might not know what you’re doing after all. Eligibility can only be identified through the use of ASSESSMENTS, so the road to eligibility begins there! This article will help you with the WH questions of assessment and eligibility and ease the anxiety.

Eligibility Essentials

WHO should be evaluated?  Any children who are suspected of being a child with a disability and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade, or any student who has been referred to the district due to concerns that a student may be a child with a disability (IDEA Sec. 300.111). Parents must consent to an educational evaluation.

WHO can make a referral for evaluation? A parent/guardian, classroom teacher, and any member of the school district (public or private) can make a referral to request an evaluation. Also, a child can be court ordered for testing by a court judicial system. 

WHAT are the first steps in the eligibility process? The referral starts with an initial request for Evaluation. The district is responsible for sending home a notice to evaluate, to inform parents/guardians of procedural safeguards, and get written permission to evaluate the student.  This notice is to be mailed home within 10 days of the initial request.  Once a school district receives the request, they can request screening of skills to indicate if an evaluation is warranted or approve the request and initiate a full evaluation.  Once this is decided, there is a 60-day deadline to complete the evaluation and determine eligibility. 

WHAT exactly should BE assessed?  IDEA Section 300.304 stipulates that assessments and other evaluation materials include those TAILORED to assess specific areas of educational need.  Assessments MUST be “technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.”  You MUST use a “variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent.” Therefore, you MUST “not use any ONE single measure or assessment as a sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability.” A variety of assessments means to use various types of tests to get a thorough picture of the child’s needs. EVERY student with hearing loss who is going through initial assessment needs to have cognitive testing in order to accurately and appropriately estimate if/how much the hearing loss has impacted development based on the student’s ability compared to peers with typical hearing. Students with hearing loss (DHH-only) often experience delays secondary to access issues. There will be many school teams who resist the need to perform cognitive testing because there isn’t a question about cognitive delay. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that schools ensure that communication for students who are deaf and hard of hearing is as effective as communication for others through the provision of appropriate aids and services, thus affording an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others. (“Frequently Asked Questions on Effective Communication for Students with Hearing, Vision, or Speech Disabilities in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools”)

The relevance of cognitive testing to point out is that it is important to determine the student’s cognitive level to determine the expectations for reaching the same level of achievement as that provided to others. A student with above average cognitive ability should have the access, and therefore the opportunity, to reach the same level of achievement as other students with above average intelligence.

BE INVOLVED IN TEST ADMINISTRATION Knowledgeable, trained professionals in the area of expertise being assessed is important for test validity. TODHH often test for functional levels of achievement and performance.  While academic assessments are important for learning the full spectrum of needs, functional performance and achievement is just as important in gaining an understanding of needs and determining level of service delivery.  Eligibility is determined by assessing overall “health, vision, hearing, social, emotional, academic, communicative and motor abilities.” (IDEA: §300.301) The main goal of Eligibility Assessment is to gain a comprehensive view of the students’ current deficits and determine if they will need specially designed instruction to make meaningful gains in academic and functional performance of skills, despite their disability. 

TESTING CONDITIONS  Preferably in a location with optimal sound acoustics, reduced background noise and over multiple sessions if testing is lengthy. Since educational needs of students with hearing loss are related to access, we need to be truthful regarding students’ typical communication access when we administer tests, in order to receive truthful representations of their typical abilities. When TODHH are testing students who are DHH it is important to consider the students’ ‘usual communication situation.’ If the student usually uses classroom hearing assistance technology (HAT), then it should be used during testing. If the student has hearing aids, but rarely uses them, then the ‘usual condition’ would be to test without the hearing aids. Since being able to see the speaker’s face is very hit or miss in any situation, it is reasonable to disallow speechreading during the testing for students who are hard of hearing. If a student uses sign language, test through the classroom interpreter as the ‘usual condition’. Even when choosing to not allow speechreading, the results will still be better than what occurs in a classroom because of the limited background noise in the test situation (unless HAT is used). Some tests, like the Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS) and the Listening Comprehension Test can be given to visual communicators using ASL, although a note about not administering the test protocol as recommended must be included when reporting results.

WHAT ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE USED? Itinerant teachers don’t typically teach core content classes like Reading, Literacy, Math, Science or Social Studies. TODHH can ask the general education teachers to provide testing information on academics, and then supplement their information with specific literacy diagnostic tests, to test specific areas of reading difficulties such as vocabulary assessments or phonological awareness. TODHH can assess written language, oral language, and communication skills. 

Most of the time, itinerant teachers are giving informal functional skill assessments using rubrics and checklists. TODHH test for Auditory Skill Development, Communication Skills, Self-Advocacy Skills, Pragmatic Language, Social Skills, Access to Instruction, ASL/English Development, Secondary Transition skills and Educational Risk and Fatigue.  Performance of the expanded core skills needed for full participation (self-advocacy, communication repair, knowledge about hearing loss, amplification independence, etc.) are necessary for a student to be fully prepared to function as an adult. These are NOT standard areas of evaluation for other students with special needs, but they must be considered as part of a tailored assessment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Products and articles about assessments for students with HL can all be found HERE. Informal inventories such as the SIFTERS, CHAPS, LIFE-R, CHILD and more, can be found in the Building Skills for Success in the Face Paced Classroom or individually in the Teacher Tools Takeout under the Assessment category. 

The terms: child find, referral, evaluation and re-evaluation can cause an involuntary reaction of panic in teachers.  Just the THOUGHT of ASSESSING a child for a disability instills immediate concern that you just might not know what you’re doing after all. Eligibility can only be identified through the use of ASSESSMENTS, so the road to eligibility begins there! This article will help you with the WH questions of assessment and eligibility and ease the anxiety.

References:

“Sec. 300.111 (D).” Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.111/d. Accessed 6 Sept. 2022.

U.S. Department of Education. “Sec. 300.8 Child with a Disability.” Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 25 May 2018, sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8.

“Sec. 300.304 (B).” Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.304/b.

Addressing the Need for Appropriate Use of Norm-Referenced Test Instruments. Supporting Success, December 2017.

Author: Michelle Andros

Click here to download this article

The post The Road from Referral to Eligibility isn’t Easy first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Schools are required to ensure that communication for students who are deaf and hard of hearing are as effective as communication for others. To determine the level of communication effectiveness, appropriate assessment must occur. The teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing is typically the most qualified to be at the forefront of this assessment process. Some options for language assessment of learners who are ASL communicators are described below, presented in no particular order. Since language is developmental, checklists typically encompass the basic levels to higher levels of expertise. In this way, you can identify lacking skills to target for intervention, even if your student is beyond early childhood.

The Language Skill Hierarchy is intended to help clinicians and educators choose appropriate language skills to target with Deaf students with language deprivation. Created by www.language1st.org, the Hierarchy has no ages or grade levels, as it is meant to match the student’s current language abilities. It is also meant to be language-agnostic so that it can be used in oral or signed language as a guide for goal writing and activity planning. Per the Hierarchy developers, skills should be targeted in American Sign Language (ASL) first. If a Deaf child already has language deprivation, they need intensive language treatment in a fully accessible language (i.e., ASL). Clinicians should not begin to introduce printed English (aside from letters) until the child is at Level 2.

The Student Language and Communication Profile (Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, 2010) is a structured means to gather data on a student’s proficiency level in the use of American Sign Language, also with application to students who (also) use spoken English. It includes extensive, criterion-referenced, skills in specific age ranges that assists knowledgeable school staff in identifying areas of strength and non-strength in comparison to age expectations. The Profile thus defines specific skills that will impact effective access of communication. This assessment is used to determine a student’s Kendall Conversational Proficiency Level (P-Level) for ASL and/or spoken English. There are 7 defined P-Levels in this assessment, commonly referred to as ‘the Kendall’.

The Kendall Language and Communication Profile includes:

• ASL Skills Checklist for ages 0-24 months to be used in early intervention
• ASL Skills Checklist for 24-48 months
• ASL Development Checklist for Pre-Kindergarten (ages 4-5)
• ASL Skills Checklist for Kindergarten (ages 5-6)
• Early Childhood Education Preverbal Communication Intentions & Spoken English Development Checklist
• Receptive and Expressive Communication Continuums

The Standardized Visual Communication Sign Language Checklist (Simms, Baker, and Clark, 2013) was developed to meet the need for a comprehensive checklist of visual language development so that learning goals can be set, gaps in learning identified, and appropriate materials developed. It documents the developmental milestones of children from birth to age 5 who are visual learners and are acquiring sign language regardless of their level of hearing. The VCSL stands out as a standardized checklist for assessing a child’s skills in American Sign Language. The VCSL should be completed in collaboration with people who are familiar with the child’s expressive and receptive language. Deaf and hard of hearing professionals could assist family members or professionals with less fluent signing skills, using a team approach.

The American Sign Language Receptive Skills Test can assess the ability to perceive basic receptive ASL understanding of children ages 3-13 years. It measures emerging receptive knowledge of ASL, especially for children in the younger age ranges, including understanding of ASL grammar, number/distribution, negation, noun/verb distinction, spatial verbs, specifiers, handling classifiers, role shift, and conditionals. It is an ASL adaptation of the British Receptive Skills Test that consists of a vocabulary checklist of 20 words, 3 practice items, and a total of 42 test items. Includes a USB with all video stimuli and takes 10-15 minutes to administer. See the brief video showing the presentation of some test items from the ASL-RST. Research article.

The American Sign Language Expressive Skills Test can assess expressive signed language, specifically their ability to produce a signed narrative (story) using appropriate ASL framer. For of children ages 4-13 years. You can use this test only after completing the training workshop to become ASL EST certified. The training in conducted in ASL, so all participants must be fluent ASL users.

Also consider: When considering the level of effective communication access in the classroom, defining the student’s ASL skill level is necessary. Another critical aspect is the skill level of the classroom interpreter as comprehension relies completely on input of information. A 2005 study evaluated 2100 educational interpreters in the US using the Educational Interpreters Performance Assessment. The results found that about 60% of the interpreters evaluated had inadequate skills to provide full access. The study suggested that many students receive interpreter services that seriously hinder reasonable access to class curriculum and social interaction. Sufficient “through the air” access to verbal instruction and classroom communication cannot be assumed because accommodation by an interpreter is provided in the classroom.

Instructional Materials in ASL

Finding ‘just right’ instructional materials in ASL can be challenging. Below are some suggested resources.

myASLTech.com is a website that enables you to create customized instructional materials with professional ASL graphics and videos in just minutes. It has a dictionary with tens of thousands of printable ASL graphics and videos, including definitions so you can create wonderful instructional materials. With the software on this website, you can build fingerspelling scrambles, matching games, crossword puzzles, and much more in a matter of seconds, automatically generate text with ASL supports, build quizzes with ASL graphics and videos, find signs according to handshapes and movements, play games, and read stories with ASL video translations. Info video.

Holding Stories in the Palm of Your Hand focuses on narrative instruction and intervention with Story Grammar Marker^® for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. The goal is for all children to have the skills to independently and effectively communicate with anyone in their environment using their preferred modality of communication, including American Sign Language. This book also provides criterion-based assessments for narrative macro- and micro-structure for both English and American Sign Language.

Apps from Sign2Read.com.  See website for more information about the apps. All apps include a bilingual ASL-English picture dictionary of over 700 words and images.

Author: Author: Karen L. Anderson, PhD
Click here to download this article

The post Assessing Language Skills of ASL Communicators first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Although 80% of children born deaf in the developed world receive cochlear implants, the success rate with cochlear implants is highly variable (and other hearing devices) and cannot be assumed to ever ‘fix’ all language development issues, even for children with the best outcomes. We must consistently communicate with our school teams that students with hearing loss are not language disordered. Language, social, and reading delays occur secondary to lifelong decreased access to communication. This article focuses on assessments for students who primarily use listening for learning. An upcoming article will focus on assessment of students who use ASL as their primary communication mode.

The Necessity of Functional Assessments

Functional and academic performance differences for students with hearing loss are due to restricted access to spoken language, not to an inherent learning disability. Thus, if we are to provide accurate and relevant information for a student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP statement), it is necessary to assess how a student is accessing communication across school environments.

Our Favorite Functional Assessments

1. Classroom observation by someone with a background and experience in the impacts of hearing loss on classroom, social, and learning behaviors. Here is a tool to guide your classroom observation.

2. Obtain the classroom teacher’s viewpoint on how the student is performing in comparison to peers. Just by filling out a checklist a teacher’s awareness of the potential impacts of hearing loss can increase. These checklists can identify specific areas to explore with more formal assessments. Our favorites:

a. The SIFTERs – Screening Instrument For Targeting Educational Risk: Preschool, Elementary, Secondary. Routinely ‘SIFTER’ your students in October and May.

b. Get more information by having the teacher complete one or more of the Placement and Readiness Checklists (PARC).

c. Listening Inventory For Education – Revised: Teacher Appraisal has two parts, one page to assess functional listening difficulty and the second page to gauge student’s self-advocacy strategy use and overall instructional access.

3. Estimate level of speech perception / communication access. We need to answer the question: “I know he has a hearing loss, but how much does it impact what he can understand?” The first step is to assess speech perception, looking specifically at the speech sounds that a student has difficulty accessing under different listening conditions. We all realize that listening in quiet to a person speaking within a couple of feet is optimal for students who are hard of hearing – but this condition isn’t what most classroom listening is like. Our favorites:

a. The Functional Listening Evaluation is the ‘gold standard’ for assessing speech perception in school. The Recorded Functional Listening Evaluation Using Sentences lets you administer recorded sentences using your smart phone or other media device plus a small speaker. Focus on listening with and without visual cues, in quiet and noise, and near (3 feet) and far (12 feet). Learn how to administer the recorded FLE. For grades 1 and up.

b. For students younger than grade 1, or as an additional functional assessment, we like the ELFLing Procedure. It requires the student to repeat Ling sounds presented from different distances and in quiet and noise (with no visual cues). Results are helpful in explaining to teachers why they can ‘see the child hear’ but the student does not (always) understand.

The Necessity of Caution when Interpreting Normed Test Results

One strong finding from the robust 2015 Outcomes of Children with Hearing Loss Study was that normative test scores overestimate the abilities of children who are hard of hearing as they are unlikely to reflect the level of effort that students are expending to maintain competitiveness with peers.

During review of assessments during eligibility determinations, 3-year evaluations, or annual testing, we must continually remind the school team that norm-referenced results routinely underestimate the challenges of students who are DHH, requiring even more focus on functional performance to reveal access concerns with an impact on social behavior and learning.

Our Favorite Norm-Referenced Assessments

1. The Listening Comprehension Test – Elementary / Adolescent looks at student identification of the main idea, details, reasoning (inference), vocabulary, and understanding messages. Results reflect well what the student can do with what they hear. We suggest that the student NOT be allowed to speech read during the test setting and that their ‘typical’ hearing technology be used (if the student is rejecting hearing aids or hearing assistance technology, test without). If a student uses ASL, have the classroom interpreter present when administering the test to reveal how well the student comprehends what was presented. This break from standard administration must be reported. Even so, if the Deaf student is in the regular classroom and expected to perform as well as class peers, results of the LCT can provide insights into equality of comprehension to age expectations.

2. Developmental Test of Auditory Performance This test is ideal to use in a climate where normed test results are respected more highly than functional assessments. While the FLE is the gold standard, the results are sometimes not taken as an indication of a disability being present. During the DTAP the student listens to a CD and performance is compared to typically hearing students. Results are for listening in quiet and noise, with language-based and environmental sound-based items. Helps to answer the question, “How much is the student’s language level helping/hurting auditory comprehension”.

3. “How much does the student understand with what s/he hears?” is such a critical question it is important to fully explore comprehension of typical teacher information. Both the Assessment of Story Comprehension (ages 3-4) and the Oral Passage Understanding Scale (age 5-21) present different passages about which the student then answer questions. Results help to clarify how effectively a student can communicate (listen AND understand) as compared to age/class peers. As with the LCT above, the OPUS can be administered with the use of the student’s classroom ASL interpreter.

4. The Test of Language Processing Skills (TAPS) is a favorite because it assesses phonological processing (our students very often have phonological awareness skill gaps), auditory memory (hearing words incompletely translates into challenges remembering what is heard), and listening comprehension. Our students who are hard of hearing require that auditory memory be assessed and few tests do this.

5. Pragmatic language is another area that is typically weak to develop for children with hearing loss so it is necessary to include this in your assessment. This can be a part of the evaluation performed by the speech language pathologist or the teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing. A normed teacher checklist we like is the Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory or a full assessment can be done using the Social Language Development Test-Elementary or Social Language Development Test for Adolescents.

Don’t Neglect to Assess Listening Skills!

Most students with hearing loss are hard of hearing and will depend on listening to learn. Typically hearing children learn almost all skills in the auditory hierarchy by age 4, whereas children with hearing loss are delayed or have patchy development that reflects the consistency and clarity of their daily hearing. All need to be assessed to identify where their listening skills lie in comparison to the auditory hierarchy.

A recent US court case made it clear that students with hearing loss must receive an eligibility assessment that identifies areas of suspected need secondary to hearing loss must be evaluated with sufficient intensity to satisfy in depth evaluation. The crux of the case surrounded a lack of appropriate assessment of listening skills.

1. Does the student seem ‘pretty okay’ in how they listen? Use the Activities for Listening and Learning (ALL) checklist to review the many levels of listening skills, including those higher levels necessary for classroom success.

2. The best assessment out there is still the SPICE! The Speech Perception Instructional Curriculum & Evaluation has plenty of toys and cards to use as you assess skills, and a complete teaching curriculum. It takes some time to really learn how to use it, but nothing is better!

          3. The newest assessment and one of our best-sellers is the Test of Auditory Functioning (TAF). Developed by Dr. Don Goldberg as an update of the Test of Auditory              Comprehension. See Dr. Goldberg’s course for more in-depth learning about the development of the TAF and the administration of the subtests.

More Information

• Steps to Assessment – Guide to Identifying Educational Needs for Students with Hearing Loss. Includes student case studies with examples of test results in reports. This book presents vulnerable areas of development that need to be assessed and suggests some assessments. COURSE – Steps to Assessment
• Tailored Assessment for Students with Hearing Loss – 3-page article
• Resources for Identifying DHH Student Needs: Eligibility and Beyond – provides a list of functional and formal assessments for preschool and school age students.
• Supporting Success Assessment Products category from our catalog.
• For a full listing of functional and formal assessments for students who are deaf or hard of hearing click here.

Author: Author: Karen L. Anderson, PhD. Updated by Brenda Wellen, M.S. January 2026.
Click here to download this article

The post Our Top Assessments to Use with Students who are DHH first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Class grades are relatively subjective and refer to the students’ work in the school setting. Standardized tests often don’t identify the full range and extent of language learning issues. Subtle language deficits, like we often see with our young students or our older ‘star’ students who are deaf or hard of hearing, can cause significant academic performance issues, especially over time. This article will look deeper into these issues.

The full and individual evaluation is central to determining eligibility and calculating present levels of academic and functional performance. Per IDEA 300.304 a variety of assessment tools and strategies must be used to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child. No single measure, like ‘good grades’ can be used as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a disability. Assessments and other evaluation tools include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need.

Three blogs^{1, 2, 3} from speech language pathologist Tatyana Elleseff delve into the issues of subtle language impairment, good grades, and the shortcomings of standardized language tests. This article summarizes some of this information.

The concept of academic impact is central to many discussions about eligibility for specialized services. Lack of academic impact isn’t as simple as identifying that a child is receiving A’s and B’s in the school setting and that teachers see the student as performing ‘okay.’ Grades for work completion are subjective. The student may have completed the work to some level, but the amount of struggle and effort required to do so is not reflected in the paper that is turned in to grade. Our students with hearing loss often have to read and reread chapters to be able to gain some of the same information that their hearing peers accessed simply by listening to the lesson. Add to this searching through glossaries and dictionaries to understand unknown vocabulary and time for puzzling out the meaning of figurative language. Often all of this is done in extended study periods at home as compared to the length of homework study time needed by hearing peers. Grades of struggling students can be inflated as compared to grading matrices. Looking at work products over time as compared to performance expectations and teasing out indicators of what the student struggles with, when, and how he problem-solves challenges can all be a step toward identifying adverse educational impact beyond grades.

A student may struggle with coherently expressing himself, telling stories, understanding what he is reading, putting thoughts on paper, etc., and still score within the average (‘no problem’) range on academic (i.e. Woodcock Johnson) and language and phonological processing tests (i.e., CELF-5, CTOPP-2). Due to variation in psychometric properties of various tests, many children with language impairment are overlooked by standardized tests. Indeed, a child who truly has a language impairment has a roughly equal chance of being correctly or incorrectly identified, depending on the test that is given. Even if a child is diagnosed accurately at one point in time, future test results may inaccurately show that the child has recovered, based on the test(s) that he has been given. This is especially true for young children (i.e., age 5-7).

Too often, language tests are selected due to a child’s age, what tests are readily available in the building, or the test administrator’s familiarity with a test. Instead, tests should be selected based on their ability to tap into the skills for which the student is showing a deficit. Even so, standardized tests are not enough, since even the best standardized tests have significant limitations.

It is critical to supplement the findings of standardized tests with functional and dynamic assessments, interactions, and observations. In the case of students with hearing loss, it all begins with estimating the level of access the student has to communication in the classroom. The teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing needs to be armed with observations and functional data (i.e., Functional Listening Evaluation, PARC, LIFE-R, etc.) identifying specific concerns about the student’s listening, language, and social function and seek out a meeting with the speech language pathologist who will be conducting the language evaluation. Teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing ARE critical members of the evaluation team as there is no one test that will delve deeply enough to identify language issues. No one, two, or three standardized score that will negate issues observed in functional performance in the classroom related to hearing loss. We need to use our ‘Deaf Lens’ as we observe students, gather functional data, perform standardized assessments (i.e., Listening Comprehension Test, OPUS, TAPS, etc.), and discuss the results of standardized tests performed by others on the student’s evaluation team.

References

• https://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/why-good-grades-do-not-automatically-rule-out-adverse-educational-impact/
• https://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/its-all-due-to-language-how-subtle-symptoms-can-cause-serious-academic-deficits/
• https://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/what-does-research-say-about-the-functionality-of-language-standardized-tests/

Author: Author: Karen L. Anderson, PhD
Click here to download this article

The post Adverse Educational Impact with Good Grades? first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Informal checklists and observational tools offer parents and Teachers of the Deaf a practical way to track a child’s communication and language development over time.  Unlike formal assessments that provide a snapshot at a single point in time, these informal measures can be used regularly throughout the year to document growth, celebrate milestones, and identify areas where additional support may be beneficial. From infancy through high school, consistent monitoring helps families and educators make informed decisions about intervention strategies and ensure that each child’s unique developmental journey is well-documented. These tools complement formal testing by providing ongoing insight into real-world communication skills across home, school, and community settings.

Monitoring listening ability at home or school

Early Listening Function – ELF by Karen Anderson, PhD

Confused baby boy hand touch ear

Oticon Version  | Phonak Version | ELF Background Information and Scoring Examples  

• Discovery tool for parents to begin to understand the impact of
• hearing loss for their infant with newly diagnosed hearing loss
• Introduces the concept of the Listening Bubble and restrictions to incidental language learning
• Used to identify difficulties listening in noise, need for trial period with FM system in home/child care
• The ELF stimuli can also be used with early elementary-age students as an exercise for them to discover the relative size of their listening bubble in quiet and noisy conditions.
• The Oticon version was produced subsequent to the Phonak version and has a clearer scoring methodology.

ELF in Spanish | ELFLING checklist – adapation of the ELF test format using the Ling sounds | ELFLING procedure

Children’s Home Inventory of Listening Difficulties (CHILD) by Karen Anderson, PhD & Joseph Smaldino, PhD

CHILD Checklist to be completed by families – can be used for children ages 3-12 years; recommended especially for transition to school age (3-5 years).

CHILD Checklist to be completed by the child – recommended for children ages 8-12 years.

Introduction to using the CHILD, SIFTER, LIFE-R checklists

• Can be used as pretest and post-test for amplification use
• Can be used to determine need for assistive device use in home
• Used to assist in identifying listening strengths and needs prior to transition to school
• Can be used to advocate for classroom hearing technology (FM) re: functional listening in noise

CHILD in Spanish | CHILD in Arabic | Child in French | CHILD in Welsh | CHILD in Chinese

Children’s Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS) by Walter Smoski, PhD, Michael Brunt, PhD & Curtis Tannahill, PHD.

• Can be used by teachers or parents to address suspected auditory processing issues
• Questions relate to 6 listening conditions including: noise, quiet, ideal, multiple inputs, auditory memory sequencing, and auditory attention span
• Recommended that person completing the checklist have observed the child over considerable time and situations.
  

The CHAPs has been made available for use with the permission of Dr. Smoski (wsmoski@ilstu.edu).

For a chart listing listening behaviors at specific ages ranging from 1-28 days through 22 years, see the Developmental Index of Audition and Listening (DIAL). From: Goals and Expectations of the Hearing Aid Fitting. Trends in Amp, 4(2), (1999).

Listening Inventory For Education- Revised (2021) by Karen Anderson, PhD, Joseph Smaldino, PhD & Carrie Spangler, AuD.

• Suite of 4 tools
• Structured way to measure listening difficulties and self-advocacy strategies using student and teacher input
• can be used on paper or online
• recommended for students 8 years and over
• online version can be used for all students on your caseload
• generates tailored reports that can be used in IEP meetings
• recommends goals for self-advocacy and tracking

Listening Inventory For Education – Revised (LIFE-R) Efficacy Materials: this link brings you to the LIFE-R webpage including the LIFE-R Student Appraisal, LIFE-R Student Appraisal with Pictures and the Teacher LIFE-R.

Functional Listening Evaluation by Cheryl D. Johnson, PhD, and P. Von Almen

• Can be performed with a variety of age-appropriate stimuli including single words, phrases, nonsense phrases and sentences
• Measures functional listening in a variety of conditions including quiet/noise; auditory-visual/auditory only; close/far; with/without HAT.

The Functional Listening Evaluation (FLE) was first described as a procedure in 1993 (developed by C. D. Johnson and P. Von Almen) and has become a ‘staple’ in most school systems as a means to estimate how well a student is able to access verbal instruction, and to what degree speechreading, distance and noise effect performance. The FLE can be performed with a variety of age-appropriate stimuli including single words, phrases, nonsense phrases and sentences depending upon if the desired information is about the precision of speech perception (words/nonsense material) or to estimate access to classroom communication (phrases for young children, sentences for grade 1 and above). A steady source of background noise and a means to control the loudness of the noise in comparison to the presenter’s voice is needed to perform the FLE in a valid manner.

The self-calculating FLE response form can be used with any stimuli material. Cheryl DeConde Johnson has made available this response form and Common Children’s Phrases (standard and nonsense version). The Recorded FLE Using Sentences controls the noise level (+5 S/N) and can be played via your phone, iPad or computer. The Recorded FLE is available from Supporting Success for Children with Hearing Loss. A 10-minute classroom noise file has been included on this website for educator use, however FLE presenters are cautioned to use a sound level meter so that the levels of speech and noise are measured during the evaluation.

Spanish Translation of Pediatric Common Phrases List (Word) (PDF)

Iowa Medial Consonant Test

• Test of precision listening ability
• Student repeats VCV phrases (i.e., eevee, eetee, eesee)
• Student with a hearing level difference of 70 dB HL or better should be able to repeat the VCV phrases with 100% accuracy when presented at 3 feet in quiet without visual cues; poorer than expected results can indicate improperly fit hearing aids and/or a lack of auditory development of fine auditory discrimination between phonemes.

Classroom Observation Form: Observational Record of Behavior of Deaf or Hard of Hearing Students

Screening Instruments For Targeting Educational Risk

Beautifully redesigned, fillable and self-calculating versions of all 3 SIFTER forms enable emailing a form to a teacher, having her complete it, and sending it back to the managing teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing or educational audiologist. Redesigned, fillable forms can be found at Teacher Tools Takeout (teachertoolstakeout.com). Paper versions below are still available at no cost.

Preschool SIFTER

by Karen Anderson, PhD & Noel Matkin, PhD Teacher completed questionnaire for children with hearing loss who are age 3 through age 5. Paper format only. It is unlawful to create an online version of the Preschool SIFTER or post to on other websites.

Preschool SIFTER in Spanish | Preschool SIFTER in Spanish | (alternate version) Preschool SIFTER in French | Preschool SIFTER in Arabic|Preschool SIFTER in Turkish

Elementary SIFTER

by Karen Anderson, PhD Teacher completed questionnaire for children with hearing loss in grade 1 through grade 5 or 6. It is unlawful to create an online version of the SIFTER or post to on other websites.

SIFTER in Spanish | SIFTER in Spanish | (alternate version) SIFTER in Danish | Danish Instructions |SIFTER in French | SIFTER in Arabic |SIFTER in Welsh | SIFTER in Turkish

Secondary SIFTER

by Karen Anderson, PhD Teacher completed questionnaire for children with hearing loss in middle and high school. It is unlawful to create an online version of the Secondary SIFTER or post to on other websites.

Secondary SIFTER in Spanish | Secondary SIFTER in Spanish  (alternate version) | Secondary SIFTER in Danish | Secondary SIFTER Danish Instructions | Secondary SIFTER in French | Secondary SIFTER in Portuguese |Secondary SIFTER in Turkish

Fatigue and Learning – Informal Assessment of Fatigue and Learning Scale

Children with hearing loss have fragmented hearing, which causes them to expend more effort, leaving fewer cognitive resources for listening comprehension and overall contributes to a higher level of fatigue than class peers and ultimately decreases pace of learning. This pair of brief checklists includes norms for typically developing children in grades 4-9. So a child is performing well in the classroom – at what cost (effort/fatigue)?  Another valuable informal measure of auditory fatigue is the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale.

Developing Skills Related to Hearing Status

Audiology Self-Advocacy Checklist-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (ASAC-ES) Audiology Self-Advocacy Checklist-MIDDLE SCHOOL (ASAC-ES) Audiology Self-Advocacy Checklist-HIGH SCHOOL (ASAC-ES) These checklists contains skills that students should develop during elementary, middle and high school related to their hearing status. To complete the checklist, enter the date the topic is introduced and then track performance using the progress levels (1, 2, or 3). If the skill has not yet been introduced (NI) the item is included but does not receive a score. If the skill is not applicable for a student, note NA and eliminate that item in the overall scoring. Specific skills that are being addressed may also be recorded as objectives on the student’s IEP. Skills should be re-evaluated at least annually. Follow the scoring directions at the bottom to obtain an overall performance level. A mastery level of 90-100% indicates the student’s audiology self-advocacy skills are functioning at the proficient level. If proficiency is not reached when the student transitions to middle school, work should continue on the deficient skills.

Monitoring social concerns and school interactions of children and (pre)teens with hearing loss

Children’s Peer Relationship Scale This scale is an elementary school survey that provides insights into the early elementary school student’s communication partners, socialization, and attitudes toward wearing hearing devices. It has been made available for use with the permission of Kris English, PhD. Children’s Peer Relationship Scale in French

Minnesota Social Skills Checklist for Students who are Deaf-Hard of Hearing This Minnesota Social Skills Checklist is designed to guide for teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing in looking at skills needed in the areas of: social skills, pragmatics or language as it relates to social communication, friendship and self-esteem. Many learners who are deaf/hard of hearing need additional teaching in these areas. These types of skills are most often learned through incidental learning which students who are deaf/hard of hearing often miss due to their hearing loss. This ambitious checklist was developed by a variety of experienced contributors and was made available to professionals by the Minnesota Department of Education (refer to the MDE website for the available PowerPoint training on how to use the Social Skills Checklist).

Minnesota Compensatory Skills Checklist This Checklist was developed collaboratively as a model for itinerant teachers to use with hard-of-hearing students; however, it can be adapted for use with any population with hearing loss. It was developed as a hierarchy of self-advocacy and compensatory skills specific to students with hearing loss from grades kindergarten through high school. It is not an evaluation but it can contribute to identifying student needs and monitoring progress. The following topics are included: understanding hearing loss, amplification management, resources and technology, communication strategies, and personal/interpersonal skills. This ambitious checklist was also developed by a variety of experienced contributors and was made available to professionals by the Minnesota Department of Education.

Pragmatics Checklist Fits on one page and can be completed individually by the parents or as part of an interview dialogue with the early interventionist. The majority (75%) of children will be able to use complex language (full expressions of more than 3 words) per the following: Age 3: 20 of 45 items; Age 4: 43 of 45 items; Age 5: 44 of 45 items; Age 6: 45 items. Therefore, at transition, a child should have mastered 20 of the items using complex language. By entry into kindergarten, all items can be expected using complex language. See the Social Communication – Pragmatics page for more information.

Self Assessment of Communication-Adolescent (SAC-A)  A questionnaire that assists adolescents in identifying problems due to hearing loss. As responses are discussed with a hearing professional, the student may gain understanding in how hearing loss is effecting him/her and provide insights on how the problems may be better managed. This test has been made available for use with the permission of Judy Elkayam (judy8590@comcast.net) and Kris English.

Significant Other Assessment of Communication – Adolescent (SOAC-A) A questionnaire for friends of students with hearing loss to assist in identifying problems that the hearing loss may be causing. SOAC-A and SAC-A answers are compared in a discussion with the individual with hearing loss and his/her friend(s) to result in new ways that problems can be managed. This test has been made available for use with the permission of Judy Elkayam (judy8590@comcast.net) and Kris English. Contact the author(s) for any questions on the SAC-A or SOAC-A.

Social Skills Functional Assessment Checklists: Social Skills Checklist (PreK/Elementary) | Social Skills Checklist (Secondary) | The Social Attributes Checklist

Does this student have a poor self concept? is a 15-item checklist to be completed by the classroom teacher or DHH teacher in discussion with the classroom teacher. All items are stated negatively, such as “Gives up easily.”

Think About It Quiz is a checklist to assess self concept that was developed for use with adolescents and focuses on five areas or domains in which this population typically judges themselves against their peers: Athletic Competence, Conduct/Morality, Peer Acceptance, Physical Appearance, and Scholastic Competence. Easy to score, the Think About It Quiz can identify if a student has a negative self-concept in one or more of these domains. By intervening to improve adolescents’ self-concepts it is possible to influence the social, academic, and behavioral adjustment of adolescents at a critical time in their development.

Placement and Readiness Checklists

Placement and Readiness Checklists (PARC) for students who are deaf and hard of hearing help Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams make decisions about programming and placement for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Four readiness checklists focus on essential skills that students require in order to actively and meaningfully participate in their education programs. The placement checklist helps IEP teams evaluate the accessibility and appropriateness of the general education setting to support students who are deaf and hard of hearing.

PARC General Inclusion Checklist – A study in Iowa (2016) verified that the General Education Inclusion Readiness Checklist, one protocol from the PARC, is a reliable and valid tool for identifying the readiness skills of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Students in grades K-7 were included. This reliability research compared student results on the PARC General Education Inclusion Checklist with the Iowa Assessments and Iowa’s Formative Assessment for Teachers (FAST). Mean ratings were significantly lower for students with hearing loss than their typically hearing peers. PARC checklists were developed for use in Colorado by a team lead by Cheryl DeConde Johnson permission has been provided for widespread use of the PARC Checklists.

Mainstream Assessment of Readiness – Preschool (MARC-P) by Cynthia S. Robinson and Judy Sexton.  A criterion-referenced assessment for families and educators to evaluate the strengths and needs of children who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are being considered for mainstream placement with their hearing peers or to help plan services for children already in the mainstream at the preschool level.

I want to tell you that you greatly helped me last year. I had a child with a cochlear implant. I used many of the assessments provided on your website to complete with her and her mother. The assessments helped us determine sooo much! She is thriving this school year. Last year she was not. I strongly believe she is thriving because your assessments helped us figure out what direction to take her in. So thank you from the bottom of my heart for your help! You rock!    -Candace, DHH Teacher

For a deeper dive, see our courses:

The post Tests – Informal Assessments for Parents, Students, Teachers first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Communication skills are at the heart of our concerns about the development of young children who are hard of hearing or deaf.

We need easily administered, functional, and fun ways to assess children’s development and to plan needed intervention.

Check out some of the ways we recommend gathering information on the communication of active children in early intervention to preschool!

• Do you work on communication needs with families of infants and toddlers with hearing loss?
• Are you part of an evaluation team assessing children with hearing loss exiting early intervention services?
• Do you sometimes have preschoolers on your caseload and need a place to start?
• Would you like functional assessments for young children that have been used with children who are deaf or hard of hearing?

Read on for Ways to Gather Functional Information and Plan Intervention

1. Early Listening at Home Curriculum

This is a curriculum for early intervention providers working with parents of children from birth to age 3 who are deaf and hard of hearing and beginning to learn listening and spoken language. It outlines skills and strategies to support parents and caregivers, including techniques for effective coaching, planning, and reflecting. There are 47 one-page activities for families to practice early listening skills and a simple form to track and follow up on progress. Transition to preschool with this information solves the question about the need for auditory skill development and appropriate goals. It also offers practical, shareable resources in English and Spanish and a tool for EI providers to help parents help their child become comfortable with hearing device use during all waking hours.

2. Carolina Curriculum

The Carolina Curriculum is a long-time staple in providing assessment and intervention to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with special needs. The curriculum comes with two parts, one for infants/toddlers (0-36 months) and one for preschoolers (24-60 months). Each item on the assessment tool is linked directly to a curriculum item that describes procedures for teaching the assessed skill. Assessment is linked to intervention through hierarchies of developmental tasks that are both relevant to typical routines and pertinent to long-term adaptation—thus integrating the intervention in a meaningful way into the child’s life. The Carolina Curriculum provides a comprehensive picture of the child’s development and helps teachers to clearly track child progress. There are domains of focus in the curriculum: personal/social, cognition, communication, fine and gross motor skills. Where the DRIP-EY and Early Listening at Home curriculums focus on the communication needs of young children with hearing loss, the Carolina Curriculum provides a broader context of overall development, which is key for planning appropriate placements.

3. MacArthur Communication Development Inventories – customized for young children who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Larry Fenson, author of the MCDI, has very generously allowed use of communication development inventories that have been customized for children with spoken, signed, or cued expressive language – at NO COST. These simple inventories are provided to families to indicate the growth in expressive language over time, from 8 months to 36 months. Each of the inventories has been customized so families can indicate expressive language that is spoken, signed or cued, so that a complete picture of growth across modalities can be captured and compared to typically developing peers. The MCDI is an integral part of many early intervention programs. Download these customized inventories and the norm graphs from Teacher Tools Takeout. Part of the Teacher Tools Library!

4. Parent Interview Progress Report

If a family wants their child’s language to progress at appropriate rate of development, there are some basic things they need to be aware of and include in their daily lives to facilitate communication. This free checklist is designed to allow the interventionist to discuss the child’s progress in language within the context of their consistency in providing communication access. Can be combined with the Formula for Success Contract, which helps clarify the responsibility of the family, and the early interventionists, in facilitating child communication development.

5. Early Intervention Kit

The Early Intervention Kit is a great supplement to the hearing-loss-specific materials you already may be using (i.e., DRIP-EY, Early Listening at Home). Whether you are new to early intervention or a seasoned veteran, this Kit has ‘grab-and-go’ information that you will find yourself using with families again and again. Effectively address assessment, intervention, and documentation for pre-linguistic skills, speech and language development, and sound production. Filled with intervention techniques and skill hierarchies, the Kit will be a good resource for planning your intervention services and is complete enough to be a useful text for university programs. The Therapy Guide has information on assessment, goals, treatment, and documentation. The Activities Book is a gold mine of intervention objectives, goals, and specific suggested activities, for Pre-Linguistic Skills, Expressive Language Skills, Receptive Language Skills and Sound Production Development. Ages: Birth-3 Grades: Birth-PreK.

Children who are deaf or hard of hearing are not ‘just kids with language delay who use hearing devices or sign’. They require the involvement of interventionists with a deep knowledge of how hearing loss impacts communication and other areas of development. In turn, these professionals need to have the tools they need to appropriately assess, plan intervention, and work with the families of these children. These 7 items all contribute to appropriate services for young children who are deaf or hard of hearing, birth to 3, and to gather information for preschool transition and beyond.

The post Ways to Gather Great Information for Early Intervention to Preschool first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Students with hearing loss have less access to communication. This will result in a slower pace of learning and fewer gains in academic knowledge unless appropriate services and supports are provided. At the end of the school year it is important to ask whether your students have learned the amount expected of their grade level. Has the level of support been sufficient? We need to use data in our planning for next year’s success!

Decreased speech perception translates into decreased comprehension, especially of novel words and new information. Most students who are deaf and visual communicators primarily receive communication from their classroom interpreter with little meaningful conversation or information exchange directly with peers. Regardless of the communication modality, progress through the curriculum at the same rate as class peers assumes that the student is fully participating and has received the same information as those peers. It’s all about access!

The law requires the IEP be reviewed at least once a year to determine if the child is achieving the annual goals (Section 1414(d)(4)(A)). The IEP team must revise the IEP to address any lack of expected progress and anticipated needs.

We need to not only strive to close language and learning gaps, we need to simultaneously support our students in keeping up with the day-to-day learning in the classroom. We MUST monitor progress to know if full access is truly occurring and to ensure that our students are keeping pace with classroom expectations. Without appropriate support, the trajectory of educational performance shown above is all too likely.

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing with no other learning issues – with full access to school communication – CAN progress at the expected rate IF they are receiving the appropriate intensity of focused support.

Compare Progress from Year-to-Year

Review your student files semi-annually for young children and annually for later elementary school-age students. If available, look at norm-referenced test results, like the high-stakes tests or language evaluations. Have the student’s percentile scores or standard scores stayed consistent? With your focused intervention and appropriate supports, have the student’s percentile scores improved? Or, like the previous figure depicts, has the student experienced inappropriate access and insufficient supports causing a decrease in performance over time?

For example, consider a student who scored in overall reading in

• grade 2 at the 48^thpercentile
• grade 3 at the 38^th percentile
• grade 5 at the 30^th percentile

The student still continues to fall within 1 standard deviation from the mean, or within the ‘average’ range. However, a drop of 18 percentile points over 3 years raises the question about adequate yearly progress and if the access accommodations and intensity of services have truly ‘leveled the playing field’ for the student with hearing loss. The school team may not be concerned because the student still scores ‘average’ but to a professional with a background in the impact of hearing loss on learning, this trend should demand that more focused and appropriate supports/access accommodations be provided.

Needed Supports for Keeping Pace in the Classroom

Background, or world knowledge is necessary to build surface level understanding of a specific topic. Prior knowledge is an excellent predictor of performance. Our students tend to have ‘Swiss cheese language’ with unpredictable knowledge gaps in vocabulary and concepts. They also are often limited in the number of attributes they use to describe objects or concepts, further contributing to their gaps and limited world knowledge. Imagine learning about the conquistadors if you lacked knowledge of geography, discoveries of early explorers, and that there are different countries and they may desire different things. Previewing and reviewing new vocabulary is critical for the student to ‘keep up.’

Filling the gaps. We can expect that surface learning will take longer for students with hearing loss than their typically hearing peers. Students who have a less complete understanding of surface level information are not going to benefit to the same degree, or at the same rate, during interactive activities meant to move them to deeper understanding.  “Closing the language gaps” is not just something that is a nice extra touch to provide to our students if there is a teacher of the deaf available; it is necessary for deeper learning. Add to this the fact that reduced listening ability often delays literacy skill development and slows reading fluency. Just teaching vocabulary, without sufficient phonological awareness, will not develop the reading fluency the students need for comprehension at the pace of peers. Filling in the gaps in prior knowledge is necessary if a child is to be able to develop the surface learning that is prerequisite to developing deeper understanding. Without this surface learning, a deeper understanding is not possible.

Conversational inequalities. Research⁴ has indicated that during one-on-one conversations in a quiet setting, students who are hard of hearing have conversational skills equivalent to their hearing peers. In a typical mainstream classroom, students with hearing loss make fewer overall communication attempts than their hearing peers. They also often seem unaware when their peers try to initiate conversation and do not attempt to maintain the conversation. When they attempt to maintain the conversation, they generally use one-to two-word phrases and do not add new information. The research found that in a 1:1 conversation, 75% of the conversation maintenance attempts by children with hearing loss were appropriate compared to 100% for hearing peers. They frequently tried to maintain the conversation by bringing up a topic that was unrelated to the conversation. In other words, they were not aware enough of the content of the conversation to contribute information, so they brought up a new topic.

Educational practices that seek to move students to deeper understanding typically involve interaction with peers. This is often very challenging for students with hearing loss when acoustic access inequality in the classroom results in conversational misunderstandings for students with hearing loss. This provides a powerful argument for the use of hearing assistance technology (HAT) that will improve perception of peer voices in 1:1 or group settings.

Challenges repairing breakdowns. Another aspect of conversation relates to what a person does when they do not fully understand. One study⁵ found that persons with hearing loss were able to cue into changes in topic but had much more difficulty when a shift in topic was made during the conversation. The research findings can be summarized as, “the more predictable the conversation, the fewer the likely breakdowns.” The teacher needs to be aware of this issue when pairing the student with different partners or groups. Moving to a quieter area for discussion will not ensure full participation by the student with hearing loss but it will make participation easier and more likely. Including him or her in a group that is more likely to stick to the topic will heighten the value of the exercise for the learner with hearing loss.

Keeping up in the classroom is a challenge for children with hearing loss due to access issues that interfere with understanding conversational communication and the gaps in knowledge resulting from decreased auditory access since infancy (or sign communication with limited language models since infancy). Filling the gaps of vocabulary and phonological awareness is necessary for students to keep up with class expectations for developing surface learning. Access to classroom discussion and for all group activities is a prerequisite for deep learning to occur. Providing the appropriate access technology is a necessity to facilitate deeper learning to occur within the classroom. Selecting appropriate group partners and honing communication repair skills is also critical to students with hearing loss achieving at the same rate and to the same level as peers.

Considerations for Monitoring Progress

ASL CONTENT STANDARDS – K – 12.  Whichever communication modality is used by a student, he or she must have the skills to adequately communicate both receptively and expressively.  Most families at this point prefer that their child learn to listen and speak. This preference does not always result in a child who has school entry skills. Whether the family has chosen to use sign from birth, or it is the modality deemed to be most effective for learning by a school team due to child’s lack of progress learning to listen and speak – a student must learn ASL in a developmental sequence to prepare them to make academic gains at least at the rate of their class peers. Developed by Gallaudet, the ASL Content Standards for K-12 grade students  were developed to ensure that children learn ASL in much the same way that hearing children in the US acquire and learn English. The Standards are a huge step forward in determining the student instruction needed and monitoring progress of ASL knowledge and use.

CURRICULUM BASED MEASURES: There is a need for functional assessments to monitor students’ academic performance. Curriculum based measures provide a specific approach to measuring student learning that includes repeated measurement (weekly, monthly) across extended periods of time using general outcome indicators that are sensitive in the rate of change demonstrated in the performance of a task of the same difficulty. While curriculum-based measures (CBM) have been commonly used in public education, it is appropriate to consider CBM use for students who are deaf/hard of hearing specifically. Developed as part of a grant from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, the University of Minnesota has developed extensive progress CBM materials designed specifically for teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing to monitor students who have hearing loss and/or language differences. Go to the Education Resources for Teachers of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students resource page for extensive training resources for teachers and specific means to monitor student progress. This truly is an amazing resource and would be great for professional learning collaboratives or self-study. The measures take only a few minutes each week!

MAZE ASSESSMENT: Monitoring performance via the MAZE assessment is a common form of curriculum-based measurement. Maze presents sentences or short stories with every 7th word missing. The student must select which of 3 words best fits the missing word in the sentence. Clearly, as can be seen in the bar graph, even our students with hearing loss who do not have IEP services and supports are not performing like their age peers. Learn more about creating MAZE reading passages here.

Monitoring Progress of Expanded Core Skills

Expanded core curriculum refers to those skills that students with hearing loss need to learn to be able to access the general education curriculum and fully participate. Even if a student is provided access to effective communication as required by Title II of the ADA, he or she still needs to learn the skills to independently, and confidently, navigate as a person with hearing loss in a mainstream setting. These areas will not be taught specifically and yet they must be learned if full participation in the classroom is expected.

Per the Iowa Expanded Core Curriculum guidance, hearing loss adds a dimension to learning that requires explicit teaching, such as information gained through incidental learning. It has been estimated that for persons without hearing loss, 80% of information learned is acquired incidentally. No effort is required. Any type of hearing loss interrupts this automatic path to gain information. This incidental information must be delivered directly to students who are deaf or hard of hearing.  Two hierarchies for self-advocacy are the Guide to Self-Advocacy Skill Development and the Student Expectations for Advocacy and Monitoring (SEAM).

Most teachers without specialized training related to hearing loss do not have the expertise to address the unique needs of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Therefore, IFSP & IEP team collaboration with educational audiologists and teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing is necessary in addressing academic and social instruction and the assessment of these areas. In order to close this information gap, the Expanded Core Curriculum for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (ECC-DHH) was developed. Texas has developed a Livebinder with extensive information about ECC and resources to support implementation.

Collect and use data in planning for next year’s student success!

References:

1. 1. Fisher, Frey, Hattie (2016) Visible Learning for Literacy Grades K-12: Implementing the Practices that Work Best to Accelerate Student Learning. Corwin/SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
2. 2. Yoshinaga-Itano (2010). The longitudinal language learning of infants and children with hearing loss. ASHA Virtual EHDI Conference, October.
3. 3. Meyer, Kym (8/17/2017). Wait – There’s a Student with Hearing Loss Coming into My Class? Webinar viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ytOawiYuI&feature=youtu.be
4. 4. Duncan (2001). Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting. The Volta Review, 101(4), 193-211.
5. 5. Caissie (2002). Conversational topic shifting and its effect on communication breakdowns for individuals with hearing loss. The Volta Review, 102(2), 45-56

Click here to download this article, together with author attribution

The post What is Appropriate School Progress? first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.

Online education has been a struggle for many students. Those with hearing loss have additional issues when accessing virtual education. The CAVE Checklist or Communication Access in Virtual Education has been increasingly in use by DHH professionals since last fall. To learn about the CAVE and see some results in report form, Read More.

Timing is everything. The CAVE Checklist  was released just as many educators of students who are deaf or hard of hearing were searching for ways to ensure their students were receiving appropriate access to online learning AND ways to illustrate to school teams the need for appropriate access if the student’s access was less than required to meet class expectations. The CAVE  was received with much excitement and relief as a means to obtain information about student access levels during online learning.
Download:   English CAVE,   Spanish CAVE,   French CAVE,   Fillable English CAVE.

The CAVE Checklist poses 10 questions that students must read (or consider in interview format) and then select the answer that applies in the situation most of the time. Very similar to the LIFE-R Student Appraisal (online, fillable form, or with pictures), the student must select  one of 6 responses.  Not every situation will apply to every student. Situations indicating appropriate access will be marked by the student as always or mostly easy. Situations in which difficulty was indicated need to be addressed for appropriate access needs.

The CAVE further asks the student what they think would help them most during online learning:

1. 1.) To have/use at home during e-learning I would like to:
2. 2.) During only learning my teachers would:
3. 3.) My comments about online learning

Example Use in Assessment Reports

Excerpts from example reports were provided by Vicki Anderson, AuD, Educational Audiologist. Details have been altered for student confidentiality.  Excerpts relate specifically to online learning situations to illustrate how the CAVE Checklist and an online FLE can assist in identifying access needs and recommendations.

Kindergarten (bilateral loss moderate, hearing aids, DM system, classroom amplification system):

Communication Access in Virtual Learning (CAVE Checklist): Developed by Karen L. Anderson, Ph.D. (2020), this self-assessment tool was designed to identify possible communication access issues that may occur during virtual education situations. Students check off closed-choice emojis representing their responses ranging from “Always Easy” to “Always Difficult” or “Doesn’t Happen”.

The CAVE was completed on STUDENT’s behalf by her father and older brother, who help her with her online classes.  There were no online learning situations that were rated as Easy for STUDENT.  Even the best-case scenario (teacher’s face is visible on screen and a boom microphone is used) was rated as Sometimes Difficult for her to hear and understand the words the teacher is saying.  When (1) the teacher’s face is visible but she is not using a microphone, (2) when her face is not visible (e.g., showing a worksheet but she is using a microphone), (3) when her face is not visible nor is she using a microphone—any of these virtual situations are Mostly Difficult for STUDENT to access the content.  An interpreter and/or captioning is currently not used and captioning, nor is any other accommodation made to allow STUDENT to understand her classmates in discussions.  It was indicated that during e-learning, family thinks it helps her most to listen through the built-in speaker of her tablet, and to be able to see teacher’s face and the faces of her classmates when they are talking.

In virtual learning, the teacher should use a boom microphone and assure STUDENT can see her face, with the computer camera on to allow student speechreading.  Age-appropriate captioning (e.g., key words and vocabulary) is recommended for all live or recorded sessions, including, PowerPoint and video presentations. With continued exposure, captioning and speechreading will improve her communication access and support her listening.

Elementary (bilateral loss mild, hearing aids, DM system)

Online Functional Listening Evaluation: this functional assessment samples the communication access of hard of hearing students in various virtual learning conditions.  We know that students with typical hearing respond with 90+% accuracy when listening in noise, even when the noise level is equal to the speech presentation level.  It is reasonable to assume that the degradation in sound that occurs when a teacher’s voice is presented over an internet streaming service (like Zoom) will not significantly decrease the speech perception and auditory comprehension ability of students with typical hearing.  For equal access, students with hearing loss should be able to perform with at least 90% accuracy during online learning presentations.

STUDENT was administered the online FLE test by the educational audiologist during a Zoom meeting accompanied by his IEP Manager.  Nonsense Children’s Phrases (C.D. Johnson, 2011) were presented under conditions representing the various teaching scenarios experienced during on-line learning. Nonsense Phrases were used to simulate new curriculum or new vocabulary.  STUDENT was wearing headphones over his hearing aids. Three conditions were tested. (1) In the ideal or “best” virtual condition, the presenter wore a boom microphone, the camera was on and STUDENT was encouraged to watch the face of the person speaking. The camera was turned off, as in a PowerPoint presentation, but the boom microphone was still used.(3) the computer microphone only was used along with the camera (visual speechreading cues). After that the computer mic was used and the camera was turned off, which exemplifies a typical live PowerPoint presentation.  Finally, to sample two in-person learning scenarios, a clear face mask was worn with only the computer microphone (no boom microphone), and lastly a clear mask was worn while using the boom microphone (this would also represent use of the Roger microphone plugged into the STUDENT’s tablet).
Results show that for STUDENT to achieve equal access to school curriculum as his normally hearing peers, for virtual learning he needs the “ideal” teaching modality where teachers use a boom microphone AND allow speechreading with the cameral ON. For in-person education in a COVID environment, teachers should wear a clear mask AND use his remote microphone system.  In virtual learning, teachers should use boom microphones and assure he can see their face with the computer camera on, and use captioning for PowerPoint or video presentations.

High school (fluctuating conductive hearing loss, student choice to not use DM system, classroom amplification systems in use in each classroom)

Communication Access in Virtual Learning (CAVE Checklist): Developed by Karen L. Anderson, Ph.D. (2020), this self-assessment tool was designed to identify possible communication access issues that may occur during virtual education situations. Students check off closed-choice emojis representing their responses ranging from “Always Easy” to “Always Difficult” and “Doesn’t Happen”.  STUDENT reported appropriate (“Mostly Easy”) access in 5 of 10 online learning situations.  Two situations were rated as “Sometimes Difficult”: 1) When teachers show information on the screen and their face is not shown, and they are not using a microphone (only the computer microphone); 2) When classmates are talking into the microphone of their devices during a group discussion.  Three accommodations she indicated “Doesn’t Happen” included use of her remote microphone technology during online learning, teachers’ use of captioning, and captioning of students’ comments.  Teachers’ wearing a boom microphone, assuring teacher’s face is visible on the screen, repeating or rephrasing students’ comments, and consistently using closed captioning for all talkers will improve and assure appropriate and equal access to online learning for STUDENT, compared with her typically-hearing peers.

Peers’ comments in class discussions should be repeated in-person and in virtual settings. In virtual learning, teachers should use boom microphones and assure she can see their face, with the computer camera kept on.  Captioning should be used for all live or recorded sessions, including, PowerPoint and video presentations.

Summary

Access denied is opportunity denied. Children with IEPs due to being deaf or hard of hearing comprise only 1% of the total number of children receiving special education services. For almost all of the other 99% the educational issue is due to a learning disorder, and not secondary to sensory access issues. Virtual education adds greater challenge to students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Having the tools to identify student access issues and the data to make the case for appropriate access accommodations to be provided is a necessary step for students with hearing loss.

Academic success is driven by communication access. I encourage you to use the CAVE Checklist and perform the online FLE to gather the access data needed so that our students CAN be full participants in learning at the rate expected of their peers.

Click to download this article

The post ACCESS Check first appeared on Supporting Success For Children With Hearing Loss.