School Psychology Review, 2016, Volume 45, No. 3, pp. 362–371 Research Brief Comparison of Students’ Achievement: Deaf, Learning Disabled, and Deaf With a Learning Disability Jacqueline M. Caemmerer, Stephanie W. Cawthon, and Mark Bond The University of Texas and pepnet 2 Abstract. Approximately half of students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) have a co-occurring disability. Although assessing as well as diagnosing learning disabilities (LDs) is particularly difficult in this population, it is important to properly identify students who may be eligible for academic interventions or accommodations. This study analyzed national samples of students who are (a) classified with an LD, (b) DHH, and (c) DHH and classified with an LD. The three samples were compared in terms of their performance on a standardized measure of academic achievement. The results of our exploratory analyses suggest that math calculation skills and classroom grades are useful in classifying students who are DHH with an LD. We discuss the implications of these findings, limitations to the dataset, and areas for further research. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hear- among students who are DHH to better sup- ing (DHH) are linguistically and culturally port their education and service delivery diverse (Bat-Chava, 2000; Mitchell & Karch- (NASP, 2012). However, because of problem- mer, 2011). Adding to this diversity is the atic assessment measures and challenges when possibility that students who are DHH may interpreting findings, there is a growing con- also have disabilities that affect areas of their cern that students who are DHH who have a academic functioning. The National Associa- disability are being improperly identified tion of School Psychologists (NASP) stated (Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). To support the that there is a need for school psychologists to learning of students who are DHH and have a recognize and address this heterogeneity co-occurring disability, which is estimated to Work on this project is partially supported by pepnet 2 (www.pepnet.org). Pepnet 2 is funded by the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, via Cooperative Agreement H326D110003. Funding is provided from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2016. The findings reflected herein do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education and should not be taken as an endorsement for any product. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jacqueline M. Caemmerer, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 504 SZB, One University Station, D5800, Austin, TX 78712-0383; e-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2016 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x 362 Achievement in DHH, LD, and DHH–LD be 50% of the DHH population (Mitchell & allow the school psychologist to compare the Karchmer, 2011), it is important to properly child’s performance with a nationally repre- identify those who meet eligibility criteria for sentative sample of the child’s same-aged services (Krywko, 2014; Morgan & Vernon, peers. Below-average performance on normed 1994). achievement tests, in conjunction with a pat- As with the general population, learning tern of strengths and weaknesses across vari- disabilities (LDs) are the most prevalent dis- ous data, may be suggestive of a possible LD ability within the DHH population (Mitchell & (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013). Karchmer, 2011). Assessing as well as diag- Unfortunately, the standardized achieve- nosing students who are DHH with an LD is, ment tests used to diagnose LDs are not however, a complex process (Morgan & Ver- normed on students who are DHH. This means non, 1994; Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). The that the reference groups for these tests are not federal definition of LDs is one contributing representative of these students (Qi & Mitch- factor to this difficulty. An LD is defined as ell, 2012). In the absence of available DHH follows (U.S. Department of Education, Office norms, most school psychologists compare the of Special Education Programs, 2006): performance of students who are DHH with A disorder in one or more of the basic psy- their same-aged hearing peers. Despite the po- chological processes involved in understand- tential accessibility issues in administering ing or in using language, spoken or written, standardized achievement tests with students that may manifest itself in an imperfect abil- who are DHH, experts still recommend their ity to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including use as an important part of a comprehensive conditions such as perceptual disabilities, data-gathering process (Krywko, 2014; Mor- brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dys- gan & Vernon, 1994). Unsurprisingly, educa- lexia, and developmental aphasia (p. 2). tors who work with individuals who are DHH The definition specifies several exclu- report frustration regarding the assessment sionary conditions that preclude a diagnosis, process and the credibility of results (Soukup such as a hearing disability and limited Eng- & Feinstein, 2007). The implications for diag- lish proficiency. If one of the exclusionary nosis and intervention are high: Educators crit- conditions is presumed to be the primary cause icize assessment reports as being inadequate, of the student’s learning difficulties, in this being of low quality, and resulting in an unmet case the student’s status as DHH, then an need for high-quality evaluations for this pop- additional diagnosis of LD is inadmissible. ulation (Cawthon & the RES Team, 2012). Determining whether the hearing loss of stu- In addition to the lack of appropriate dents who are DHH is the primary cause of norms for students who are DHH, other fac- their learning difficulties, or whether there is tors complicate the LD identification process an additional LD present, is thus a challenging in this population. Many of these factors that task for educators. affect LD identification center on issues of Federal criteria also indicate that a stu- language and communication, including vari- dent may have an LD if the “child does not ations in language modality and proficiency, achieve adequately for the child’s age or to the age of onset of hearing loss, exposure to meet State-approved grade-level standards” the English language (Mitchell & Karchmer, (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Spe- 2011), and the match between the communi- cial Education Programs, 2006, p. 2). To iden- cation modalities of children and important tify a student with an LD and determine if the people in their lives. Students with greater child requires special education services, a proficiency in American Sign Language comprehensive evaluation by a trained profes- (ASL), for example, tended to perform better sional, often a school psychologist, is com- on standardized reading tests than those with pleted. This evaluation usually includes the lower ASL proficiency, even after controlling administration of standardized cognitive and for nonverbal IQ (Freel et al., 2011; Strong & achievement measures, at a minimum, which Prinz, 1997). Previous research also suggested 363 School Psychology Review, 2016, Volume 45, No. 3 that if the hearing parents of students who development that occur across the DHH were DHH competently communicated with population. their children using sign language, their chil- Balancing the importance of neither dren were more likely to achieve higher Eng- overidentifying nor underidentifying these stu- lish language achievement scores (Mitchell & dents continues to be a need in the field (Cal- Karchmer, 2011). Students who learned Eng- deron, 1998; Krywko, 2014). Given the lower lish prior to their hearing loss (for those who average reading performance of students who are later deafened) tended to score higher on are DHH, many students may be inappropri- standardized tests (especially reading tests) in ately identified with an LD if the Individuals comparison to students who were born DHH with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) exclu- and did not learn English first (Mitchell & sionary criteria for DHH status were not in Karchmer, 2011). In addition, some students place. In contrast, a practitioner may be hesi- who are DHH use cochlear implants; cochlear tant to diagnose an LD in a student who is implants are surgically implanted electrodes DHH because of the difficulty in ruling out the that can provide a sense of sound by address- student’s hearing loss and reduced exposure to ing individuals’ unique hearing loss. Although robust language and communication models as cochlear implants increase individuals’ access a primary cause of learning difficulties (Kry- to oral conversations, which are thought to be wko, 2014). Examining trends in the achieve- a key incidental learning experience, a study ment of DHH students in comparison to their that compared college students with and with- hearing peers, however, does not directly ad- out cochlear implants found that both groups dress the problem of accurately diagnosing performed similarly on word knowledge tests students who also have a co-occurring LD. (Convertino, Borgna, Marschark, & Durkin, Previous research has looked at qualitative 2014). Combined, these findings illustrate that characteristics, typically from the perspective students who are DHH are a heterogeneous of their teachers (Mauk & Mauk, 1998), that group and their differences, in turn, may in- differentiate between students who are DHH fluence