American annals of the deaf Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf; Conference of Superintendents and Principals of American Schools for the Deaf; Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf; Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf, Gallaudet University Press

Journal description

For 150 years, the American Annals of the Deaf, has been a professional journal dedicated to quality in education and in related services for children and adults who are deaf and hard of hearing. The Annals publishes articles about deaf education and recent research into trends and issues in the field of deafness.

Current impact factor: 0.88

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2009 Impact Factor 0.324

Additional details

5-year impact 0.75
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.04
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.22
Website American Annals of the Deaf website
Other titles American annals of the deaf, AAD, A.A.D
ISSN 0002-726X
OCLC 5695496
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Gallaudet University Press

  • Pre-print
    • Archiving status unclear
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Eligible UK authors may deposit in OpenDepot
  • Classification
    ​ blue

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The researchers explored the phonological awareness (PA) competency and confidence of educators working with children who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. Performance comparisons were made between the two surveyed professional groups, teachers of the deaf (TODs; n = 58) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs; n = 51). It was found that both respondent groups demonstrated gaps in PA knowledge and skills; however, SLPs performed significantly better, on average, than TODs. The educators expressed feelings of moderate confidence in their skills related to teaching children with hearing loss and assessing their PA. Correlations between educator demographics or levels of confidence and educator performance on PA measures did not yield significant findings. The results underscore the need for improved personnel preparation and PA continuing education for educators supporting literacy education of children who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2014; 158(5):522-38. DOI:10.1353/aad.2014.0004
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A defining feature of autism spectrum disorders is atypical behaviors, e.g., stereotypy, noncompliance, rituals, and aggression. Deaf and hard of hearing individuals with autism present a greater challenge because of additional issues related to their hearing status. One conceptualization of problem behavior is that it serves a communication function, i.e., the person has learned that certain misbehaviors may be reinforced in some way. The present article describes "functional behavior assessment," a group of state-of-the-art methodologies that allow a caregiver to determine the cause of the behavior, so that treatment--based on that cause--will be more effective. Different methods of functional assessment are described, along with a step-by-step implementation sequence. The results of a functional assessment should lead to more effective programming, resulting in quicker elimination of the behavioral concerns, and allow the person to gain access to greater independence and more reinforcement.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2014; 158(5):555-66. DOI:10.1353/aad.2014.0008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Teacher preparation programs and educational programs serving children with hearing loss have been closing at an alarming rate since the beginning of the new millennium. Is the education of deaf and hard of hearing children evolving into a permutation of speech-language pathology, educational audiology, and special education? Is the field moving from a primarily educational discipline into a primarily clinical discipline? It gives this impression, I believe. This is due to politics, incidence, and economics. With medical advances (cochlear implants and now brainstem implants), plus technological improvements (digital hearing aids), college and university administrations and school district boards are cutting these programs, believing that with these new advances the students do not need to be educated distinctly as before, and can be served in the general or special education classrooms, receiving oral/aural service from speech-language pathologists or educational audiologists. The perception is that these students who are implanted or aided today are gaining much more hearing, and thereby require less restrictive classrooms. Of course, this idea means it will be less costly for the district to educate these students in classes/rooms for children with hearing loss. This is a large factor in closures. The envelopment of audiology to now include actual aural rehabilitation, as well as evaluation, diagnosis, and amplification, is having an impact, especially on classroom teachers of children with hearing loss and providers of related services to deaf or hard of hearing students. With the closing of resource rooms and contained classes for deaf and hard of hearing children, the teacher preparation programs are also terminating, as the reduction of positions in the field is inducing this situation. This was evidenced in 2004 at Adelphi University in New York, when the deaf education program I was hired to teach in closed, as a result of politics, incidence, and economics. Since I had a background in speech, linguistics, and basic audiology, I was kept on at Adelphi. However, some of the other adjunct faculty in the program were not so fortunate, and, of course, the appointed professor line was eliminated. Where are the voices of the experts, administrators, and educators in the field? They seem to be silent. Where is the clout of the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) and its five groups (AG Bell Association, CAID, CEASD, ACE-DHH, and NAD) in discussion and action concerning the downfall of the field? What about coming together to acknowledge and address this issue? Start with local/regional forums, expand the discussion to a national symposium, and possibly expand it to an international symposium, as this may be an international problem also? Unique education, expertise, skills, and experience are required to work with children with hearing loss; plus, these students need and deserve this attention. Speech-language pathologists, educational audiologists, and special educators lack this preparation; thereby, their proficiency and capability are limited in this important educational/clinical area. At my university, aural rehabilitation as a distinct course has been dropped for graduate students and is now incorporated into a course called Advanced Audiology, in which aural rehabilitation and audiology are cut in half and combined into a three-credit course. At a time when speech-language pathologists are working with more students with hearing loss, they are receiving less preparation for this work. Here is the paradox: This reduced preparation for speech-language pathologists to work with these children is being provided at a time when they are increasing their case-loads of these children and may be the only service provider for these children, many of whom have been removed from resource rooms and contained classes. At my university some of the aural rehabilitation courses are being taught by audiologists, most of whom have limited practical knowledge and experience in working with these children. How well are we preparing these prospective speech-language pathologists, educational audiologists, and special education teachers to work with deaf and hard of hearing children and clients? Let us hope the transition from a field of specialized education to a field of related service provision does not eventually lead to the demise of the education of children who are deaf or hard of hearing! The time is now to...
    American annals of the deaf 01/2014; 158(5):484-5. DOI:10.1353/aad.2014.0001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: By now, you have celebrated the 2014 Gregorian New Year and are waiting with bated breath for this editorial—and, yes, this is another one with a weird-sounding title. The suspense from waiting is over, but I am not certain whether the outcome will be confusing, ambiguous, or—perhaps—pleasant. I suspect that you might even wonder about the relevance of this topic, and especially my approach, to understanding the controversies in our field. In any case, you can decide on these issues after reaching the end of this editorial and, hopefully, after checking out the contents of the references. Most educators, researchers, and even theorists know that composing questions and providing answers to them is a complicated, controversial endeavor. Somewhere I have read that Voltaire remarked that we should judge people by their questions rather than their answers. With all due respect, I think we should evaluate both the questions and the answers and, perhaps, reserve our highest accolades for the creative composition of a range of questions followed by an imaginative array of answers or perspectives. What might not be obvious is that this question-answer relationship is reflective of the ability to think creatively, critically, and rationally. This sounds nice and, perhaps, plausible, but the process is confounded by other murky constructs such as epistemology and methodology (Halpern, 1997; Norris, 1992; Paul & Wang, 2012, ch. 5). With respect to reading (yes, that “R” word, again), asking and answering questions is considered an effective strategy for developing critical readers (National Reading Panel, 2000). Of course, it would be even more effective if the question-answer band facilitated the synthesizing and summarizing of information in texts. Unfortunately, there is much more to the process of synthesizing and summarizing—prior knowledge, motivation, and reader response factors come to mind, for starters. Ironically, one’s prior knowledge and strong biased opinions can impede the act of summarizing and synthesizing information on controversial, emotion-laden topics—at least from the standpoint of decontextualized rationality or decontextualized reasoning (K. E. Stanovich, 2009; K. E. Stanovich & P. J. Stanovich, 2010). Before proceeding further, let’s briefly discuss the construct of decontextualized rationality, which, as you have probably surmised, is one type of rationality and one that I favor—mostly. This construct is similar to or undergirds the constructs of weak and strong forms of critical thinking (Paul & Wang, 2012, ch. 5). If you do not think there is a construct that can be labeled as relatively unbiased thinking or reasoning, then this discussion will bounce off you like water off a duck’s back. Of course, you can find other scholars who concur with your views (e.g., Johnson, 1992; see also other perspectives in Norris, 1992). In any case, there is the assumption that an important characteristic of critical thinking (or critico-creative thinking) is the ability to recognize your own fallibility—so to speak—in the process of evaluating and generating evidence. Essentially, you have to weigh the evidence against your own set of beliefs based on your experiences and understandings. Let me put this another way: You have to separate your beliefs from something that is out there—data, information, etc. It is no small feat—and I often worry about this task—to detach your beliefs from the process of evaluating or interpreting arguments (or data and so on). It is equally as challenging to keep your beliefs in check while considering the asking and answering of a range of questions related to the so-called hot topics in our field—cochlear implantation, the use of American Sign Language (ASL) or Cued Speech/Language, among many others. K. E. Stanovich (2009) discusses the major types of rationality (instrumental and epistemic), which—in my view—are often related to a form of the standard epistemology that adheres to a type of objective methodology. In other words, an effective critical-thinking approach is the use of the (or a?) scientific method to gather and analyze data and proffer interpretations. I guess you could say there needs to be a match between our rationality and the structure of the world. Oh yeah, even the construct of a match is shrouded...
    American annals of the deaf 01/2014; 158(5):477-80. DOI:10.1353/aad.2014.0005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This longitudinal study explored the rate of language growth of children in an early intervention program providing auditory-verbal therapy. A retrospective investigation, the study applied a linear growth model to estimate a mean growth curve and the extent of individual variation in language performance on the Preschool Language Scale, 4th ed. (PLS-4; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002) for 24 children with hearing loss in a convenience sample. A statistically significant change in raw scores was observed across 6-month intervals. However, growth in standard scores did not show statistically significant predictable change across the 6-month intervals. Scores on the language measure were closer to expectations for younger peers with normal hearing when compared to data reported for the PLS-4 normative sample. Language outcomes varied significantly for individual children based on time spent in early intervention, suggesting that intervention was contributing to growth.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2014; 158(5):539-54. DOI:10.1353/aad.2014.0006
  • American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(4):410.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The title of this editorial is a line taken from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism (Kronenberger, 1948, p. 38), and it is instructive to provide a few more lines from that passage: A little learning is a dang’rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Pope seems to convey the message that there is an intoxication that comes with attempts to understand complex topics at only an initial surface level. To become sober, one needs to clear the debris of the giddiness that accompanies this limited knowledge state and proceed to a deeper, analytical, balanced, comprehensive view. Re-reading, rethinking, re-dialoguing, reading widely, becoming cognizant of divergent positions, and so on can assist this process if individuals are relatively tolerant of ambiguous encounters and disagreeable standpoints. Ironically, the intoxication of which Pope writes might also be due to strong biases, stigmas, or negative attitudes associated with controversial, emotional-laden topics such as—for example, in our field—the value of American Sign Language, the establishment of ASL-English programs, cochlear implants, and speech and hearing practices and services. This intoxication prevents us from delving deeper into the issues and recognizing—albeit, not necessarily endorsing—a panorama of paradigms. In a diverse world, the promotion of and adherence to one comprehensive value system is probably not productive or possible, especially in a pluralistic society such as that which exists in the United States. At best, what we can hope for is a politically liberated position—which might be distasteful but necessary. This point is discussed eloquently by John Rawls in his book Political Liberalism (1993), which was actually a qualification of some of his major ideas in Theory of Justice (1971). (Trust me—both books require a substantial amount of re-reading, re-dialoguing, Tums, etc.) I certainly agree with the comments of Don Moores in his invited essay for this issue that none of what we have attempted so far to improve literacy and meet other educational challenges is a panacea. There might not be or should not be a one-size-fits-all solution. Specifically, there is no single variable or condition that can account predominantly for either the success or failure of the academic or English-language or English-literacy development of all or even most d/Deaf and hard of hearing children and adolescents. In my view, this one-size-fits-all phenomenon is a consequence of not heeding the warning associated with a little learning. Another direction I want to take with Pope’s dictum is to discuss the subsequent influence of the ideas of Helmer Myklebust, who died about 5 years ago (February 26, 2008) and who had been—and probably still is—one polarizing figure in the education of d/Deaf and hard of hearing children and adolescents (see, e.g., Moores, 2001; Paul & Jackson, 1993; Paul & Moores, 2010). Taking a short, superficial, reflective route, it is quite easy to fault Myklebust for his statements that (a) sign language is not a language and (b) there is a psychology of deafness. In addition, his compensatory hypothesis has caused considerable controversy due to its negative connotations (Myklebust, 1964). As should be done with the works of all complex scholars, it is critical to delve deeper and to contextualize Mykle-bust’s hypotheses. In the tenor of his time, Myklebust and others were interested in the effects of disabilities (or conditions—for those of you who do not like the word dis -abilities) on cognitive development. During Myklebust’s era, most linguists and psychologists asserted that a sign language was not a bona fide language similar to a spoken language (Moores, 2001; Paul & Jackson, 1993; Paul & Moores, 2010). So it must be remembered that Myklebust was using proficiency in a spoken language as a prerequisite for cognitive development. This assertion can now be contested, and needs to be qualified and discussed within, at the least, the framework of sociocultural factors and the validity of sign languages. In any case, the major issue was language deprivation and...
    American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(1):3-6. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0011
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Twenty-two college students who were deaf viewed one instructional video with standard captions and a second with expanded captions, in which key terms were expanded in the form of vocabulary definitions, labeled illustrations, or concept maps. The students performed better on a posttest after viewing either type of caption than on a pretest; however, there was no difference in comprehension between standard and expanded captions. Camtasia recording software enabled examination of the extent to which the students accessed the expanded captions. The students accessed less than 20% of the available expanded captions. Thus, one explanation for the lack of difference in comprehension between the standard and expanded captions is that the students did not access the expanded captions sufficiently. Despite limited use of the expanded captions, the students stated, when interviewed, that they considered these captions beneficial in learning from the instructional video.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(4):453-67. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0033
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: I suspect that the title of this editorial elicits your memory of a television commercial showing a father vigorously strumming an imaginary electric guitar and jumping up and down while listening to a classic-rock radio station known for delivering songs from the 1960s and ’70s. His pre-teen daughter, who peeked in the room to witness this scene, runs to her mother and proclaims, “Daddy’s doing it again!” Both mother and daughter rush into the room to see the event. Well, yes, I am “doing it again.” That is, this is yet another editorial focusing on those convoluted constructs such as theory, research, assessment, and instruction, and their relations to reading and literacy. I recognize that there is more to life (or, rather, education) than reading/literacy. In fact, as indicated by the two letters in this issue (by Jean Andrews and John Luckner), there is indeed more to reading/literacy than just English language, American Sign Language, phonology, and on and on. The book review by Ye Wang (this issue) also cautions against the proffering of a single factor (e.g., the single-factor fallacy)—that is, an all-encompassing factor—to explain the reading/literacy acquisition process. Her discussion of “theoryless” constructs is to blame (or praise!) for the inclusion of the “mysterious black box” in the title of this editorial. Perhaps the title would have been longer if I had included a few constructs from the book review by Stephanie Cawthon (this issue), especially her discussion of evidence-based practices and novice versus expert readers. Admittedly, the contents of these four pieces might be enough to add to the frustrations of parents/caregivers and educators who want straight answers or guidelines for developing reading/literacy skills in their young and adolescent children who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. Unfortunately, there are no straight or easy answers. I encourage you to read the letters by Andrews and Luckner and Wang’s book review several times—the main focus of my editorial. (I had to, and also had to take a several walks around the block.) Not only is repeated reading a good thing, but also, you should appreciate the in-depth scholarly analyses provided by these three individuals. To keep this editorial from becoming a book chapter, I focus on a few constructs in order to add my two cents. Let us start with the “R” or “L” word; that is, reading or literacy, which seem to be used interchangeably in the two letters and Wang’s review. If you think these terms are synonymous and need no further clarification, then skip the rest of this section. However, these terms are complex and are not considered synonymous. From one perspective, reading seems to be a subset of literacy (i.e., script literacy; see, e.g., Wang, 2011), and literacy not only includes writing but also a host of other wild and imaginative constructs (e.g., Paul & Wang, 2012). From another perspective, the focus on the improvement of reading—as documented by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) and the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008)—might mask the larger goals of literacy, for example, “expanded uses of various literacies to serve a range of purposes” (Tierney, 2008, p. 95). Several scholars have argued that this narrowing of reading, as made evident by the recommendations or implications of the NRP, NELP, and evidence-based practices, leads to a narrowing of the direction of instruction (e.g., see discussion in Tierney, 2008). The narrowing of the direction of instruction constrains the creativity of teachers, compels them to teach the test, to view reading as a set of skills to be acquired, and to perform other activities that are not only not meaningful but also seem divorced from the authentic process of learning. We might not be able to resolve the dissensions or disagreements on the construct of reading (or literacy) or even whether there are effective or best practices for teaching reading to either a group of students or to individual students. Perhaps one way to minimize the confusion of the “R” or “L” word—for now—is to assume that...
    American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(4):393-6. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0030
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effective initial preparation and ongoing support of teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing has always been a difficult and controversial task. Changes in student demographic characteristics and educational settings, combined with the rapidly diminishing number and diversity of deaf education teacher preparation (DETP) programs, indicate that the field of deaf education may be at a tipping point. In the present article, the author establishes the dimensions of the current problems and proposes specific solutions to increase the accessibility and effectiveness of DETP programs that would simultaneously enhance the supply, retention, and instructional effectiveness of teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 157(5):439-49. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Deaf learners' acquisition of fundamental lexical properties of high-frequency English verbs related to transitivity and intransitivity was examined, including the subtle distinction between unergative and unaccusative verbs. A 140-item sentence acceptability rating scale was used to assess this lexical knowledge in deaf college students at two English proficiency levels, plus a control group of hearing native English speakers. Hypotheses addressed the influence of relative derivational complexity and overall English proficiency on verb acquisition. Though the hearing group showed greater accuracy in sentence acceptability judgments and greater accuracy tied to overall English proficiency, the two deaf groups displayed fairly robust knowledge of targeted verbs' fundamental transitive and intransitive lexical properties. Nevertheless, verb acquisition remains a formidable challenge. Further research should assess deaf students' knowledge of these lexical properties in lower-frequency English verbs, including unaccusative verbs prevalent in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) and other academic discourse.
    American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(3):344-62. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0022
  • American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 157(5):412.
  • American annals of the deaf 01/2013; 158(4):399-405. DOI:10.1353/aad.2013.0034