Conference PaperPDF Available

The German Sign Language Receptive Skills Test & the Sentence Repetition Test for Swiss German Sign Language

Authors:
Tobias Haug at University of Teacher Education in Special Needs
Tobias Haug
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Presentation in the Symposium "Exploring Signed Language Assessments around the World"
Content uploaded by Tobias Haug
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tobias Haug on Jul 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Symposium #7
Exploring Sign Language Assessment around the
World
Tobias Haug
German Sign Language Receptive Skills Test
1
2 Defense, Tobias Haug December 2, 2009
DGS Receptive Skills Test
Methodology
3
Sample
Number of subjects 54
Gender 29 male
25 female
Age 3;9-10;10 (M = 7;0)
Parental hearing status 34 Deaf children of Deaf parents (DD)
20 Deaf children of hearing parents (DH)
School sites 5
Defense, Tobias Haug December 2, 2009
Results
4
General Conclusion
• Statistical results
• Evidence for sound psychometric properties of
the adapted DGS test
• Nature of relationship of raw scores to other
variables (e.g., chronological age, age of
exposure, parents’ hearing status)
• Content validity
⇒ 2015: planning of norming study in cooperation with
University of Education in Heidelberg, Germany
Defense, Tobias Haug December 2, 2009
Results
5 5
Sentence Repetition Test (SRT) for Swiss German
Sign Language (DSGS)
6
SRT templates for test development
• DGS (38 sentences) > closely related to the ASL version
• BSL, children‘s version (17 sentences)
• LIS (10 sentences)
• E-Kids, DSGS learning materials for children (5
sentences)
• Development of new sentences (5 sentences)
7
Example
8
Panel of experts
• Tasks during test development
• Deciding to remove, retain or revise sentences
• Judging sentences according to their relative age of
acquisition (6;0-8;0, 8;1-10;0...)
• Deciding on acceptable forms (e.g., open/closed
handshape, change of direction, number of
repetitions, one or two handed signing)
9
Panel of experts (con’t.)
• Meetings
• Three live meetings, communication via email
• Criteria for selecting experts
• DSGS competent
• Background in linguistics
• Background in working with children (e.g., school)
• Heterogeneity of region
10
Pilot studies
• on the usability of the test with native signing
children (N=3; 8;9-11;5 years old)
• deaf adults (N=3)
• judging the level of difficulty of the sentences by
deaf adults (N=5).
• > The results of all three pilots formed the basis to
(1) reduce the number of sentences (from 76 to 40),
(2) make some changes to the testing protocol, and
(3) refilming of some sentences.
11
Main study
• Testing of 50 deaf children and adolescents (6;4-18;6
years old) in 5 different schools in German Switzerland
• Currently analysing the data
12
... Na persoonlijk contact met verschillende onderzoekers en tevens ontwikkelaars van zinsherhalingstesten is nu duidelijk dat er SRT's voor gebarentalen bestaan in de Verenigde Staten, Italië, Engeland, Zweden, Duitsland en Zwitserland (Hauser et al., 2008;Rinaldi et al., 2018;Cormier et al., 2012;Schönström, ongepubliceerd manuscript;Rathmann & Kubus, 2014;Haug et al., 2015). In 2008 is in de Verenigde Staten de eerste zinsherhalingstest voor volwassen doven in American Sign Language (ASL) ontwikkeld door Hauser et al. (2008). ...
... De zinsherhalingstest voor Deutschschweiz Gebärdensprache is ontwikkeld door Haug et al. (2015). Deze test is een afgeleide van onder andere de ASL-SRT die hierboven besproken is. ...
NGT-SRT: De ontwikkeling van een zinsherhalingstest voor Nederlandse Gebarentaal
Thesis
Full-text available
  • Aug 2018
As for most signed languages, there is great variation in sign language fluency amongst users of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). These variations depend for example on the age of acquisition of NGT, the type of education followed by the signer, and whether the signer grew up with hearing or deaf family members. Given the lack of suitable language assessment tools available to tap into this variation in NGT fluency in adults (L1/L2), we developed an efficient (short and simple) NGT assessment tool. After exploring the range of existing assessment tools as described by Enns et al. (2016), we developed a sentence repetition task (SRT) for NGT, the NGT-SRT. In line with the existing SRTs (ASL-SRT 1 , Hauser et al., 2008; BSL-SRT 2 , Cormier et al., 2012; DSGS-SRT 3 , Haug et al. 2015), thirty-nine sentences were created, varying in length and complexity. The different levels of complexity were developed conform a combination of guidelines for the existing SRTs in signed languages, guidelines developed by Mayberry (unpublished) for a related test, and guidelines developed in the European COST project, which focused on SRTs in spoken languages: Action IS0804, described by Marinis and Armon-Lotem (2016). The thirty-nine sentences were equally distributed across the three levels of complexity. The NGT-SRT was piloted with a group of L2 learners of NGT, whom were trained to become a sign language teacher or interpreter. As part of their curriculum, their individual sign language communication skills were monitored and scored following the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) guidelines (Boers-Visker et al., 2013). Based on their assessment scores, the students are scaled on a level A1 < A2 < B1 < B2 < C in which A1 is the lowest level (poorly proficient) and C the highest (highly proficient). Their performance on the CEFR-scale was used to answer the first research question: (1) "Does the NGT-SRT show sensitivity to tap into different levels of sign language proficiency in line with CEFR scores?". Further, my aims were to find out if the three predetermined levels of complexity in the NGT-SRT are indeed observed in the results as expected and whether performance on the NGT-SRT is affected by working memory capacity. The second research question is: (2) "Does the NGT-SRT differentiate between the predetermined three levels of complexity?" My third research question sounds: (3) "Is there a relation between the NGT-SRT test scores and working memory?" To answer this question a visual digit span test following Wechsler et al. (1997) was administered. In general, the first pilot results are promising. We found a correlation between the participants' CEFR level and their scores on the test (r (11) = .836, p < .01). Moreover, the NGT-SRT differentiates between the predetermined levels of complexity. The overall significance effect is (F (2,10) = 69.641, p < .001). Between level 1 and level 2 the significant difference is (F (1,11) = 5.303, p < .05) and between level 2 and level 3 (F (1,11) = 76,112, p < .001). For the third research question, a correlation is found between the participants' score on the NGT-SRT and their working memory (r (11) = .626, p < .05).
View
Errors in Second Language Learners' Production of Phonological Contrasts in American Sign Language
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2016
In this study we investigated the performance of second language learners at beginning, intermediate and advanced levels of American Sign Language (ASL) proficiency on a sentence repetition task involving sets of items illustrating phonological contrasts. The findings revealed that rate of errors across all second language learners is highest with movement, followed closely by location and palm orientation. The lowest rate of error by far was handshape. Advanced learners produced fewer phonological errors than both intermediate and beginner learners, yet unexpected results confounded our hypotheses regarding distribution of errors across phonological parameters. This study shows that the phonological complexity of ASL influences perception and production in second language acquisition.
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.