polat

8/13/2019 Polat

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/polat 1/15

Deafness is more than a medical condition. Recent theories

have emphasized the importance of environmental factors on

the psychosocial development of deaf children. As part of a

larger scale study, this article aims to investigate the impact of

the following variables on deaf students’ psychosocial adjust-

ment in Turkey: student-related background and experiential

characteristics, parent-related variables, school-related fac-

tors, and teacher-related variables. The sample of 1,097 deaf

students enrolled in the elementary, secondary, and high

schools was drawn from 34 schools in 24 cities on a national ge-

ographical spread. The multiple regression analysis revealed

that degree of hearing loss, additional handicap, and age at

onset of deafness were negatively related to psychosocial ad-

justment of deaf students. However, there was a positive rela-

tionship between psychosocial variables and some of theindependent variables, such as use of hearing aids, speech

intelligibility, academic achievement, parental hearing status,

and communication methods used at school. The findings of

the study do not support a “pathological” view of deafness,

suggesting that it was not deafness per se but that some envi-

ronmental factors were also influential on the psychosocial ad-

justment of deaf students.

In the past, research on the education of deaf students

has tended to focus on the cognitive rather than the

affective domain. This is probably a result of the em-

phasis on academic achievement in schools. The major

emphasis in deaf education has been in enhancing com-municative abilities while excluding many other aspects

of development (e.g., Greenberg, Kusché, Gustafson,&

Calderon, 1985; Luckner, 1991). In the light of the po-

tential adjustment problems that exist for many deaf

students, there is a need for educators to become aware

of and to adopt strategies for promoting positive aff ec-

tive development. Traditionally, deaf people have been

viewed from either the medical/audiological or func-

tional perspective (Hoff meister, 1985). The first per-

spective labels deafness as a “deficit to be corrected”;

the latter labels deafness as a “diff erence to be accepted”

(Freeman, Carbin, & Boese, 1981). However, recently

there is a shift from the traditional deficit model of deaf

education toward an environmental or ecological model.

The ecological model starts from the premise that the

development of children can be understood only in re-

lation to the nature of their interactions with the various

environments that impinge on them and with which

they are consistently interacting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

This study seeks to investigate the eff ect of student

background and experiential characteristics (parent-

related, school-related, and teacher-related variables)

on Turkish deaf students’ psychosocial development.

Due to the lack of an established instrument for the

assessment of the psychosocial adjustment of deaf

students in Turkey, one of the major aims of the study

was the adaptation of an existing instrument for use in

Turkey. The Meadow/Kendall Social and Emotional

Adjustment Inventory (SEAI) school-age version was

Factors Aff ecting Psychosocial Adjustment of Deaf Students

Filiz Polat

University of Manchester

This work was funded by the Turkish Ministry of Education. The views

expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily

those of the Turkish Ministry of Education. The author would like to thank

all schools, teachers, and students who participated in this study. Versions

of this article were presented at XIVth Congress of Cross-Cultural Psy-

chology, August 1998, Washington, DC; at the Annual Meeting of Ameri-

can Educational Research Association (AERA), April 2000, New Orleans,

LA; and at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Chil-

dren, British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, April 2000. Correspondence

should be sent to Filiz Polat, Educational Support and Inclusion, Faculty

of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK

M13 9PL (e-mail: filiz.polat@ man.ac.uk).

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 8 no. 3 © Oxford University Press 2003; all r ights reserved. DOI:10.1093/deafed/eng018

8/13/2019 Polat


326 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:3 Summer 2003

selected to be used in this study because the theoretical

framework for the SEAI was based on ideas that have

been developed over a period of years by Meadow (1967;

1975; 1976; 1978), and it is in harmony with the author’s

view of development of deaf children. As Meadow wrote

in the SEAI manual, the theoretical framework of the

SEAI has drawn on the research and clinical work of

many individuals who have been involved with mental

health problems and the development of deaf people

(e.g., Mindel & Vernon, 1971; Rainer, Althuser, & Kall-

mann, 1969).

The process of the establishment of the final version

of the original inventory involved more than 100 profes-

sionals,and items were mainly drawn from the empirical

data based on Meadow’s and her colleague Schlesing-

er’s clinical work with deaf students over the years

(Meadow & Schlesinger, 1976; Schlesinger & Meadow,1972). It is one of the few instruments specifically de-

signed to be used with deaf students and therefore pro-

vides deaf norms. It has been used in Denmark and Is-

rael, which evidences its cross-cultural validity (Polat,

1998a, 1998b). Viewed from an ecological/environmen-

tal perspective on deaf children’s psychosocial develop-

ment, external factors were considered to have a signifi-

cant impact on psychosocial development. However the

degree and direction of the impact of these variables

on deaf students’ psychosocial development is not clear.

The main aim of this article is to present some of the

results of a larger scale project researching the relative

influences of student-, parent-, school-, and teacher-

related variables on the psychosocial adjustment of deaf

students in Turkey.

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 1,097 deaf students en-

rolled in elementary, secondary, and high schools from

four school types (see Table 1). The sample was drawn

nationwide from 34 state and one private school in 24

cities and 23 mainstream schools in 6 cities.

Procedure

The Turkish adaptation of the SEAI (Meadow, 1983)

school-age version was used as a means of collecting the

data on the psychosocial adjustment of deaf students.

The SEAI consists of 59 items that are divided into

three separate scales: Social Adjustment, Self-Image

and, Emotional Adjustment. The SEAI is an observa-

tional scale designed to be completed by teachers or

other educational professionals who are in close contact

with deaf students. A total of 24 professionals in thefields

of deaf education, special education, and psychology

were involved in the Turkish adaptation of the SEAIin terms of both semantic and content validity of the

instrument. Inferential parametric statistics (i.e., factor

analysis, correlational analysis, and regression analysis)

were used to test the research questions of the study.

Results and Discussion of Multiple Regression

Analysis

The results of factor and item analysis suggested that

the Turkish version of the SEAI showed the same fac-tor structure, in terms of both numbers of factors and the

items comprising each subscale, as the American version.

The validity (content, criterion-related and construct,

and factor analytical) and reliability (internal consistency

and test-retest) of the data revealed that the Turkish ver-

sion of the SEAI was a reliable and valid measure in the

assessment of the psychosocial adjustment of deaf stu-

dents.The results of the ANOVAs showed no gender dif-

ference on any of the three subscales or overall psycho-

social adjustment of deaf students (see Table 2).

To investigate the eff ects of background variables on

Table 1 Distribution of the sample according to gender and educational setting

School Type

Gender Residential Day Special class Mainstream Total

Male 313 184 37 75 609

Female 217 182 33 56 445

Total 530 366 70 131 1,097

8/13/2019 Polat


Psychosocial Adjustment of Deaf Students 327

social adjustment, self-image, emotional adjustment,

and overall adjustment of deaf students, four diff erent

models were estimated via multiple regression. The eco-

logical approach was taken as a frame of reference in

constructing these four models. That is, in the first

model, where only so-called primary factors were en-

tered into the regression equation, the deaf person wasviewed as a complete entity without considering him or

her as a part of larger system (such as a part of his/her

family or school). Consequently, the first model viewed

the change in social and emotional adjustment of deaf

students as a result of primary background variables

(such as degree of hearing loss, age, and gender).

The second model, in addition to the primary back-

ground variables, included family-related variables (i.e.,

familial deafness and mode of communication used at

home). Similarly, in the third and fourth models,

school- and teacher-related variables, respectively, were

entered into the equation in addition to the primary and

family-related variables. The purpose of this approach

was to determine the interaction of diff erent systems

and their relation with regard to the social and emo-

tional adjustment of the deaf person. Only the results of

the fourth model for each independent variable were

presented in Tables 3–6 due to the restricted length of

the study. The results revealed that degrees of hearing

loss, additional handicap, and age at onset of deafness

were negatively related to the psychosocial adjustment

of deaf students (see Tables 3–6). However, there was a

positive relationship between psychosocial adjustment

and use of hearing aids, speech intelligibility, academic

achievement, parental hearing status, use of total and

oral communication at school, and use of total commu-

nication at home. Teacher experience and teacher train-

ing were also positively related to the dependant vari-

ables of the study.

In the estimation of the predictive power of the vari-

ables related to each dependent variable, seven common

factors were found to have statistically significant pre-

dictive value. For each dependent variable these factors

were as follows: additional handicap, age at onset of

deafness, degree of hearing loss, student’s age, degree of

speech intelligibility, parental hearing status, and aca-demic achievement. The set of indicators included in

this study estimated 36%, 25%, 31%, and 17% of the

variance in overall adjustment, social adjustment, self-

image, and emotional adjustment of deaf students, re-

spectively. The impact of the indicators on the depend-

ent variables of the study are discussed here.

There was a significant negative association between

the presence of additional handicap and social adjustment,

self-image, emotional adjustment, and overall adjust-

ment of deaf students (see Tables 3–6). This finding is

consistent with the finding in existing literature that the

presence of additional handicap is consistently associated

with more psychological and adjustment problems (e.g.,

Aplin, 1987; Chess & Fernandez, 1980; Mertens, 1993;

Sinkkonen, 1994). A significant negative association was

also observed between the degree of hearing loss and

overall, social, and emotional adjustment of deaf students

(see Tables, 3, 4, and 6, respectively). That is, higher de-

gree of hearing loss (i.e., profound and severe) was asso-

ciated with higher degree of adjustment problems.

There seems to be inconsistency in the literature on

the impact of degree of hearing loss on the psychosocial

functioning of deaf people. Meadow (1980) argues that

students with hearing losses of 40 dB or less in the better

ear have somewhat lower rates of psychosocial difficulties

but that in excess of 40 dB, the degree of hearing loss had

little eff ect. In contrast to Meadow’s assumption, Bau-

man and Yoder (1966) and Myklebust (1960) contend

that partial hearing loss aff ects self-concept more drasti-

Table 2 Gender mean comparisons

Social adjustment Self-Image Emotional adjustment Composite

Male M 2.9549 2.9464 2.9508 2.9507

SD 0.463 0.450 0.521 0.387

N 609 609 609 609

Female M 2.9818 2.9400 2.9520 2.9589

SD 0.471 0.480 0.533 0.400N 488 488 488 488

t value 0.95 –0.23 0.04 0.34

8/13/2019 Polat



cally because being so close to the “normal” makes it

more difficult to accept disability. On the other hand some

researchers found no significant association between de-

gree of hearing loss and psychosocial problems (e.g.,

Capelli, Daniels, Durieux-Smith, McGrath, & Neuss,

1995; Frustenberg & Doyal, 1994; Sinkkonen, 1994).

Age is another variable that was found to be signi-

ficant in the prediction of all dependent variables; that

is, older students were rated by their teachers toward

the positive end of the SEAI compared with younger

students (see Tables 3–6). This finding is consistent

with the findings of Meadow and Dyssegaard (1983)

and Cartledge, Paul, Jackson, and Cochran, (1991). Older

deaf students were rated as better adjusted by their

teachers, suggesting that these may have slowly ac-

quired through time and experience the necessary skills

to be better adjusted. It may also be speculated that

older students may develop better communication skills

with the peer group where they are accepted and are

not prone to victimization because of their impairment

and limitations of communication skills.

On the other hand, no significant gender diff erences

were found between male and female deaf students’ so-

cial and emotional adjustment. The majority of research

evidence suggests a significant correlation between gen-

der and psychological problems, with more boys than

girls identified as being disturbed (e.g., Cartledge et al.,

1991; Meadow, 1978, 1980; Myklebust, 1960; Sinkko-

nen, 1994). Although the diff erence between male and

female deaf students was not significant in this study, fe-

male students received slightly higher scores on the so-

cial, emotional, and overall adjustment compared with

male students. Therefore it may be argued that although

the results are not significant, they are in accordance

with the general research evidence. The superiority of

girls over boys has been attributed to various factors in

the literature, such as parental child-rearing attitudes.

For example, boys are traditionally more likely to be en-

couraged to be active and permitted to be aggressive

compared with girls. If this behavior goes beyond the

boundaries permitted at school it is likely that teachers

label boys as more behaviorally disturbed (Meadow,

Table 3 Factors affecting the overall adjustment of HI students

Variables B Beta t Significance of t

Hearing aid 0.093806 0.115358 3.726 0.0002

Additional handicap –0.283506 –0.178726 –7.131 0.0000

Hearing loss age –0.024625 –0.075962 –3.061 0.0023

Degree of hearing loss –0.079451 –0.158216 –5.726 0.0000

Student age 0.013296 0.106649 4.005 0.0001Degree of speech intelligibility 0.194457 0.406216 12.831 0.0000

Parental hearing status 0.137605 0.154986 6.215 0.0000

Oral approach used at school 0.053220 0.053495 1.936 0.0531

Total communication method use at school 0.106673 0.123772 4.351 0.0000

Special residential school 0.058374 0.074258 2.724 0.0066

Academic achievement 0.048383 0.133611 5.218 0.0000

Type of degree teacher holds 0.074535 0.088706 2.636 0.0085

Manual communication used at home 0.046095 0.057920 1.817 0.0694

Total communication method used at home 0.040450 0.044466 1.523 0.1281

Years of experience working as a regular teacher 0.002482 0.050968 1.550 0.1215

The length of time using hearing aid –0.029411 0.307444 –0.705 0.4807

Student gender 0.004499 0.512977 0.183 0.8545

Oral communication used at home –0.005970 0.368209 –0.184 0.8537Aural-oral approach used at school 0.068527 0.256657 1.439 0.1505

Special day school 0.026110 0.447550 0.723 0.4696

Mainstream integrated class 0.003115 0.510166 0.110 0.9122

Teachers’ experience with deaf –0.011292 0.368319 –0.356 0.7217

Teacher gender –0.011283 0.507090 –0.441 0.6590

Constant 1.901832 — 26.208 0.0000

Multiple R R Square F Significance of F

0.60836 0.37011 42.34441 0.0000

8/13/2019 Polat



1980). Rodda (1966) attributes this to the normal earlier

maturity of girls. Myklebust (1960) on the other hand

argues that better adjustment of the deaf girls may be re-

lated to their superior verbal ability.

A significant positive association was found between

the use of hearing aids and social adjustment, self-

image, and the overall social adjustment of deaf stu-

dents.Deaf students who use hearing aids were found to

be better adjusted compared with the reference group.

The existing literature on the use of hearing aids mainly

focuses on its impact on academic achievement, espe-

cially reading ability and related dimensions. Jensema

and Trybus (1978) concluded that hearing aid usage

was positively related to the use of speech in deaf stu-

dents. Parallel to this finding, significant positive corre-

lation was found between use of hearing aid and speech

intelligibility (r = 0.5, p < 0.00). In his investigation of

social network development, school performance, and

communication, Kvam (1993) noted the association and

importance of the use of a hearing aid (with many other

variables) with the greater chance of happiness in deaf

students. On the other hand, the attitudes of others to-

ward people who wear hearing aids is usually reported to

be negative, which may result in negative self-esteem.

Vernon and Andrews (1993) note that some deaf people

refuse to wear hearing aids for reasons of shame, vanity,

ignorance, discomfort, or general social sensitivity.

It may be concluded that the use of hearing aids is

associated with negative perceptions about the person

who wears them. This issue is especially crucial in the

mainstream environment where the use of a hearing aid

could be very beneficial for deaf students, both academ-

ically and socially. At the same time, the use of a hearing

aid may put deaf students in a vulnerable position, given

the evidence that hearing students tend to react nega-

tively to peers who wear hearing aids. Considering the

limits of the data available in this study, we are left with

only suppositions.

Age at onset of deafness was found to be another

powerful predictor in estimating the variance in all four

independent variables of the study. However, it was neg-

atively related to the psychological adjustment of deaf

Table 4 Factors affecting the social adjustment of HI students


Hearing aid 0.097501 0.100998 3.015 0.0026


Hearing loss age –0.022394 –0.058189 –2.158 0.0312









The length of time using hearing aid –0.053205 -0.308441 –1.179 0.2387

Student gender –0.021407 0.581486 –0.804 0.4218

Oral communication used at home –0.014151 0.581464 –0.482 0.6298



Aural-oral approach used at school 0.062187 0.269291 1.228 0.2195Special day school –0.025873 0.458681 –0.667 0.5051

Years of experience working as a regular teacher –0.001135 0.581401 0.041 0.9674

Teachers’ experience –0.008636 0.581384 –0.321 0.7486


Teacher gender –0.017051 0.579623 0.632 0.5274

Constant 1.939735 — 24.014 0.0000


0.50165 0.25165 30.37715 0.0000

8/13/2019 Polat



students; the later onset of hearing impairment resulted

in poor psychosocial adjustment. The literature sug-

gests that the patterns of problems diff er according to

the age at onset and the severity of deafness. Children

who are deaf at birth and those who become deaf after

the acquisition of language form two distinctly diff erent

subgroups. Altshuler and his colleagues (1976) found

that profound early deafness is more closely associated

with tendencies toward greater impulsivity than is

generally found among the hearing population. Cooper

(1979) concluded that prelingual deaf children showed

more behavior and personality problems compared with

postlingual deaf children. The present study’s finding

contradicts Cooper’s findings. It has already been ar-

gued that partial hearing loss aff ects the self-concept

more drastically because being close to “normal” makes

it more difficult to accept disability (Bauman & Yoder,

1966). In a similar vein, it may be argued that being able

to hear what others say, being able to respond, and being

capable of normal hearing at one stage of life, then be-

coming deaf later on may make it more difficult to accept

deafness and consequently may result in poorer adjust-

ment patterns compared with prelingually deaf or those

who became deaf before the age of 2. In support of

this study’s finding, Loeb and Sarigani (1986) found a

greater degree of satisfaction with self among children

with the earlier onset of deafness. This may be, as ar-

gued by Loeb and Sarigani, due to having a longer time

to adjust to living with a hearing impairment or it may

result from never having to deal psychologically with the

loss of full sensory acuity.

Many other factors (e.g., parental reaction to deaf-

ness, parents’ acceptance of deafness, parents’ commu-

nication patterns with their children, and so on) that are

not included and controlled for in this study may play an

important role in conjunction with the onset of deafness

in the psychosocial adjustment of deaf children. There-

fore, all these assumptions are mere speculations at

present and merit further research.

Parental hearing status was another significant pre-

Table 5 Factors affecting self-image of HI students


Hearing aid 0.114377 0.119239 3.755 0.0002


Hearing loss age –0.020141 –0.502670 –2.060 0.0397









The length of time using hearing aid –0.034630 0.307139 –0.804 0.4214

Student gender 0.012078 0.449133 0.478 0.6327

Manual communication used at home HCOMM –0.047680 0.050789 1.527 0.1271



Mainstream integrated class –0.020771 0.352975 –0.638 0.5237Aural-oral approach used at school 0.028536 0.256284 0.580 0.5620


Teachers’ experience 0.021930 0.448930 0.855 0.3929

Type of degree teacher holds –0.004865 0.448245 –0.180 0.8570

Teacher gender –0.008969 0.448668 0.350 0.7260

Constant 1.842475 — 21.193 0.0000


0.57378 0.32923 37.93352 0.0000

8/13/2019 Polat



dictor in estimating all the dependent variables of the

present study. Deaf children of deaf parents (DD) were

better adjusted than were deaf children of hearing par-

ents (DH). Thisfinding is consistent with the literature,

which suggests that this variable is positively related to

many factors associated with deafness. DD generally

have been shown to exhibit higher levels of academic

achievement and psychological adjustment over DH

(e.g., Delgado, 1982; Hilburn, Marini, & Slate, 1997;

Weisel, 1988). Thefindings on the “superiority” of DD

compared with DH in the majority of the studies may be

because, as Meadow (1972) suggests, the DD parents ac-

tively promote their children’s independence and self-

reliance. In addition parental hearing status may be

related to communication patterns used at home and

parental expectations where deaf parents (DP) may have

more realistic expectations compared with hearing par-

ents (HP). In fact, several studies revealed that the rela-

tionship between parental hearing status and better psy-

chosocial adjustment and academic achievement was

found at a time when the only deaf children who could

access sign language were those with deaf parents and

relatives because signing was prohibited or discouraged

in most schools (Greenberg & Kusché, 1987;Marschark,

1993). Montgomery and Napier (2001) suggest that

the diff erence between DD and DH often vanishes if

the child’s school teaches by means of signs. DH over-

protect their children and tend to demonstrate child-

rearing patterns that rely on strong parental control,

which reinforces passivity rather than active exploration

(e.g., Brinich, 1980; Wedell-Monning & Lumley, 1980).

The ability to care for oneself and to act independently

influences classroom behavior as well as educational

achievement and social relationships.

The consequence of a dependence pattern is that

some deaf individuals experience psychosocial difficul-

ties that can persist through childhood into later stages

of life. Although manual and total communication used

at home were found to be a significant predictive factors

at their first entrance in the model (model 2) and ex-

Table 6 Factors affecting emotional adjustment of HI students


Additional handicap –0.182322 –0.085878 –3.009 .0027

The length of time using hearing aid 0.044297 0.533454 1.417 0.1567

Hearing loss age –0.035254 –0.081254 –2.869 0.0042








Hearing aid 0.044359 0.532935 1.336 0.1819

Student gender 0.028183 0.537466 1.013 0.3114



Total communication method used at –0.019462 0.537724 –0.676 0.4990


Aural-oral approach used at school 0.033634 0.523199 0.902 0.3670Oral approach used at school 0.014937 0.537086 0.487 0.6260


Special residential school –0.011773 0.526495 –0.408 0.6830

Teachers’ experience –0.024597 0.382679 –0.609 0.4905

Teacher gender 0.002899 0.530755 0.100 0.9202

Constant 2.022586 — 19.215 0.0000


0.41921 0.17573 23.15293 0.0000

8/13/2019 Polat


plained the variance in social adjustment, overall adjust-

ment, and self-image of deaf students in this study, they

become insignificant at model 3 after entering the school-

related variables. This may be because of the high cor-

relation between the methods of communication used

at home and at school. The only communication pat-

tern used at home, which remained significant at the

final model (model 4), was total communication (TC).

Therefore, the use of TC was positively significant in es-

timating the variance in self-image of deaf students.

This finding is in accordance with existing literature in

that the use of manual (sign and TC) communication at

home is positively associated with psychosocial develop-

ment. The literature suggests that the type of commu-

nication method at home may be aff ected by the hearing

status of the parents. The majority of DP use a manual

mode of communication with their children, whereasHP mainly use oral means of communication.

Some researchers (e.g., Altschuler, 1974; Meadow,

1968a, 1968b) have concluded that better impulse con-

trol and its correlates (such as maturity, responsibility,

and independence) are primarily the result of the deaf

parents’ use of manual communication. Desselle (1994)

investigated the eff ects of family communication pat-

terns on the self-esteem of deaf high school students. A

positive relationship between family communication pat-

terns and self-esteem was found. Parents who use TC

have children whose self-esteem is higher than those

whose parents use only an oral method. The parents

who were best able to communicate by using sign

language had children whose self-esteem scores were

higher than those whose parents were less skilled in

sign language. However, Vostansin, Hayes, Du Feu, and

Warren (1997) in their investigation of psychosocial

problems of deaf adolescents in relation to communica-

tion methods concluded that adolescents who had some

oral means of communication (all of their participants

used sign language) were found to function relatively

better at home.

The “better” psychosocial adjustment of deaf stu-

dents whose parents use manual means of communica-

tion may be a result of enhancement of maximum com-

munication capacity provided by parents, which may

encourage the acceptance and integration rather than

the isolation of deaf child in the family environment and

prevent the development of psychosocial problems. The

TC method used at school was found to be a signifi-

cantly positive contribution to the variance in self-

image and social and overall adjustment of deaf stu-

dents. In addition, the use of oral communication at

school accounted significantly for the variance in self-

image and overall adjustment; however, its predictive

value was not as powerful as the TC.

The literature on the impact of communication

methods used at school on the overall development of

deaf students is inconclusive. Some research has re-

vealed that manual communication is better than oral

communication, whereas others have revealed exactly

the opposite; some research suggests no relationship be-

tween the modes of communication used at school and

the any dimension of self (van Gurp, 2001). In a similar

manner, Vernon and Andrews (1993) summarize the

findings of 41 studies concerning the e

ff ects of commu-

nication modality. In 13 reports the oral method was

seen as equal to or better than the manual one; in 28 re-

ports the manual method is considered to be more ad-

vantageous. The controversy around the mode of com-

munication is often called “The Hundred Years of War”

(Meadow, 1980). It is beyond the scope of this article to

discuss one of the most basic controversies in the area of

deaf education.

The main obstacle deafness imposes is a communi-

cation problem, and the communicative development of

the child starts at a very early stage. Therefore, a set of

variables included in studies on the impact of mode of

communication on the overall development of deaf chil-

dren should include control variables (e.g., early identi-

fication, amplification, rehabilitation, parental commu-

nication patterns, and mode of communication used at

home) that may have a potential influence on the mode

of communication used by the child. However, it should

be emphasized that as long as the mode of communica-

tion used enables deaf students to express themselves, it

will result in a healthy overall development, both aca-

demically and psychosocially.

The results of multiple regression further revealed

that speech intelligibility (SI) was positively associated

with all the dependent variables of the study. Those stu-

dents who had a higher degree of SI were better ad-

justed than were those who had lower degrees of SI. It

should be noted that SI was included in the study as an

index of communication ability. As an index of commu-


8/13/2019 Polat


nicative ability, the positive impact of SI on the psy-

chosocial development of deaf students was an expected

finding. The positive feedback from others (teachers,

peers, and those in environments other than school,

such as family) may result in positive self-esteem in the

sense that the deaf person may feel part of a larger social

network where he or she can interact and express him-

or herself. As Harvey (1989) notes, his clients associate

the ability to communicate eff ectively with being so-

cially accepted. This suggests that if a person has diffi-

culty in communicating with others and in expressing

him- or herself, that person may have a problem with

self-concept (Evans & Falk, 1986). However, the find-

ings of this study should not be overgeneralized in the

sense that the data provided in this study do not indicate

the extent of a student’s ability to express him- or her-

self but rather the clarity of what he or she says.School placement was another significant factor ex-

plaining the variance in psychosocial adjustment of the

deaf students in this study. More specifically, among the

four types of school placement included, the residential

school setting was found to be positively associated with

all the dependent variables of the study except emo-

tional adjustment. The communication methods issue

(“A Hundred Years of War”) reflected itself in the school

placement issue. The use of manual methods is associ-

ated with residential schools and special schools for the

deaf, and the use of oral methods is associated with

public school placement inclusion and mainstreaming.

Just as in the current controversy over communication

methods, conflicting results have been reported con-

cerning the eff ect of school placement on students’ psy-

chosocial development.

There have been studies that have found integrated

deaf students to have higher self-concepts and more re-

alistic self-images and to be better socially and emotion-

ally adjusted than the students in special schools (e.g.,

Aplin, 1985, 1987;Frustenberg & Doyal, 1994; Hegarty,

Pocklington, & Lucas, 1982; Leigh, 1999; Lynas, 1986;

Musselman, Mootilal, & Mackay, 1996). On the other

hand, there have been studies that found no significant

impact of the type of school placement on the psycho-

social adjustment of deaf students (e.g., Lytle, Fein-

stein, & Jonas, 1987; Sarfaty & Katz, 1978), whereas

some studies have found special school deaf students to

be better adjusted than integrated deaf students (e.g.,


Farrugia & Austin, 1980; Hindley, 1993; Meadow, 1972;

Mertens, 1989, 1993), and some found that integrated

deaf students were isolated (Nunes, Pretzlik, and Ols-

son, 2001), which may have a negative impact on the

psychosocial well-being of students.The better psycho-

social adjustment of residential students in this study

does not automatically lead to the conclusion that life in

a day school or mainstream school is detrimental to the

deaf student’s social development. If the environment

in the residential school is overprotective, it may lead to

an overinflated sense of self. Therefore, the deaf person

may not be prepared to cope with the hearing world af-

ter graduation. However, the impact of diff erent educa-

tional placements on various aspects of the education of

deaf students, as with other students who have various

special educational needs and with the general popula-

tion is very diffi

cult to conduct because of the variationin individual student characteristics (Hocutt, 1996; Stin-

son & Antia, 1999). Therefore, the finding of this study

cannot be overgeneralized.

Academic achievement (AA) was positively corre-

lated with all independent variables. Students who per-

formed better in AA were also better adjusted. The lit-

erature review resulted in no research evidence that

directly investigated the impact of academic perfor-

mance on the psychosocial adjustment of deaf students.

However, there are studies that examined the factors re-

lated to AA of deaf students. Pflaster (1980) investigated

factors aff ecting the academic performance of deaf stu-

dents who were in regular classes. Among various inde-

pendent variables, 13 intrinsic and extrinsic factors re-

lated to the academic performance of deaf students were

identified. Personality and self-concept were among the

most important intrinsic factors in the academic perfor-

mance of the students.

Rodda and Grove (1987) discussed the complexities

of factors influencing self-esteem in deaf children and

the difficulties of language and communication that

compound the problems of measuring feelings about the

self. They suggested that there is probably an interac-

tion between AA and self-esteem whereby each influ-

ences the other to accelerate either positive or negative

outcomes. Like all the other variables discussed so far,

AA has been at the core of school placement controversy.

Some researchers indicate that academic performance is

probably enhanced by attendance in public schools, but

8/13/2019 Polat


social and emotional development may be adversely

aff ected (Reich, Hambelton, & Houldin, 1977).

Generally positive results have been reported re-

garding the relationship between mainstreaming and

AA. In an early study, O’Connor and Connor (1961) re-

ported that half of the 21 students who had been main-

streamed into public schools were academically unsuc-

cessful. However, 35% of the children received no extra

help once they had enrolled in an ordinary school, and

the other 65% received only occasional visits from a

speech or hearing therapist. Guidance personnel, psy-

chologists, and remedial teachers were only minimally

involved. In a latter study of transfers from a residential

school (Connor, 1975), a much higher success rate was

reported. Connor attributed the increased success to the

improved administrative dedication, teacher of the deaf

support, and parental cooperation (Mertens, 1993).Once again the limited data available in this study

cannot be overgeneralized, given the impact the above

mentioned factors may play in students’ academic out-

comes and in relation to their psychosocial adjustments.

The type of degree teachers held (i.e., specifically spe-

cial education or mainstream education degrees) was

found to be positively associated with the emotional and

overall adjustment of the students. Teachers’ experi-

ence was another significant variable that was positively

correlated with ratings on the emotional adjustment of

deaf students. The teachers who held special education

degrees in deaf education were found to give more pos-

itive ratings of emotional and overall adjustment of their

students compared with a reference group.

The review of literature revealed no direct research

evidence on the relationship between the teachers’ de-

gree and years of experience and the students’ psy-

chosocial adjustment. Although no direct evidence was

found, the following speculative interpretations are sug-

gested. Special education training in the area of deafness

may enable teachers to be aware of the special needs of

deaf students and therefore this knowledge and resultant

higher level of skills may facilitate the eff ectiveness of the

teachers. Another supposition regarding the better ad-

justment ratings given by the special education teach-

ers about their students’ psychosocial adjustments com-

pared with regular education teachers may stem from the

fact that special education teachers have a fuller knowl-

edge about deafness, deaf people, and the education of

deaf people, which may be significantly associated with

the more positive attitudes of special education teachers

toward their students. This may result in better student

outcomes at both cognitive and aff ective levels.

The positive relation between teachers and the ex-

periences and better emotional adjustment of deaf stu-

dents may be explained based on the same fact that teach-

ing experience results in positive attitudes that may

result in better adjustment patterns. Although no di-

rect empirical evidence was found between these two

teacher-related variables and the psychosocial adjust-

ment of deaf students in the literature, the results of this

study suggest that teachers’ knowledge of deaf students

and deaf education may influence their observations of

their students.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the majority of variance is not

explained by the set of indicators included in the pres-

ent study, although the set of variables included poten-

tially the most important factors in the psychosocial de-

velopment of deaf people, as suggested by the review of

the literature. The results of this study do not suggest

any conclusive evidence linking deafness directly to the

psychosocial problems experienced by deaf students.

Therefore it does not support the “pathological” ap-

proach that deafness per se results in psychosocial prob-

lems or “maladjustment.”

As is evident from the results of this study, parental-,

school-, and teacher-related factors play relatively im-

portant roles in the psychosocial adjustment of deaf stu-

dents, as do student-related factors. However the set of

predictors included in the present study estimated a rel-

atively small amount of variance in the psychosocial

adjustment of deaf students. This indicates the impact

of some other possible external factors on the psychoso-

cial adjustment and development of deaf students. This

issue is covered in the following sections.

Educational Implications

The results of the study suggest that teachers and oth-

ers who have repeated opportunities for observing the


8/13/2019 Polat


deaf students can use the SEAI as one of the assessment

tools. The successful adaptation of the SEAI has made

an important contribution because there is no other in-

strument that is specifically developed or adapted for as-

sessing aff ective development of deaf students in Turkey.

The use of SEAI may help teachers, educational psy-

chologists, and counselors to identify specific domains

of psychosocial adjustment when there is an indication

that students are particularly in need of help. It can be

used as an assessment tool in development and monitor-

ing of individualized educational programs where the

aff ective domain of education is featured.

The results of this study highlighted the importance

of teacher-related variables on psychosocial adjustment

of deaf students. Most noticeably teachers’ training (the

type of degree they hold) seems to be very important.

This result suggests that teachers who are employed inspecial schools for the deaf should be trained in the area

to be able to understand the needs of deaf students and

should have the necessary skills and knowledge to max-

imize the optimal growth of students in the school en-

vironment. Thus training of teachers should be con-

ducted in a continuous manner to update their skills and

knowledge. Teacher training programs must be pro-

vided especially for mainstream schoolteachers because

inclusion of deaf students has been notably criticized

due to its perceived adverse impact on the aff ective

dimension.

Findings relating lower ratings of deaf students

with higher degree of hearing losses by their teachers

may suggest that these students need more attention,

support, and help from their teachers and other related

professionals. This may be due to their limited access to

the auditory information compared with students hav-

ing lesser degrees of hearing loss, which may result in

more limited communication skills. Therefore special

measures should be taken to maximize these students’

communication skills. The use of hearing aids resulted

in better psychosocial adjustment patterns in this study.

Therefore it is important to perform regular auditory

assessment in order to maximize the benefit for students

from amplification.

The consistent finding on the superiority of DD in

psychosocial adjustment compared with DH in the in-

ternational literature was supported by the findings of


this study. This may stem from active promotion by DP

of their children’s independence and self-reliance, as

well as their more realistic expectations from their deaf

children, compared with HP. What thisfinding suggests

is that the social and linguistic context into which deaf

children are born needs to be considered in the under-

standing of psychosocial development of deaf children.

Although the findings of this study revealed better

adjustment patterns of residential school students com-

pared with mainstream school students, it does not di-

rectly suggest that the residential school environment

results in superior adjustment patterns. With the em-

phasis now on individualized education,research should

not be concerned with identifying some “best” place-

ment for all deaf children but rather with procedures for

identifying the proper match of programs and children

at particular times in their development. The same viewis true regarding the mode of communication used at

school. Although the use of the TC method at school

was found to be positively related to psychosocial ad-

justment of deaf students, this does not suggest that

the use of the TC method results in better adjustment

patterns compared with the oral, aural-oral, or manual

methods. This is because there is some doubt about

what teachers indicated when they used the TC method

in this study. Indeed, instead of searching for the “best”

mode of communication for all deaf students, the aim

should be to search for the best mode of communication

for each individual student. However, it should be high-

lighted that whatever method of communication and

school placement are considered, the focus should be on

overall optimal development of deaf students, and each

student should be prepared to integrate into the hearing

world as a fully participating part of it.

Nevertheless, special measures should be taken

prior to the placement of deaf students into the main-

stream school, as indicated by the lower scores received

by these students. Therefore, the placement of deaf stu-

dents into regular schools should be systematized, plans

must be developed, programs and services to accommo-

date the students should be defined, and adjustment of

students should be monitored continuously. Problems

in communication are basic to an understanding of a

deaf child’s behavioral, emotional, and social develop-

ment. However, psychosocial problems are clearly not

8/13/2019 Polat


the province of any one discipline; their assessment and

modification require the cooperative skills of many. Upon

identifying these students, an early intervention program

of group counseling and support may provide critical re-

mediation. Luckner (1991) argues that in the past edu-

cators have assumed that psychosocial development just

happens; however, as is very well known today, develop-

ment is learned. Like most subject matter that is learned,

it also can be taught. This target is attainable with the

availability of qualified professionals, which is the major

lag in the Turkish educational system. Therefore, the

Ministry of Education should invest in the training of

qualified professionals to be employed in Guidance and

Research Centers, which are the responsible institutions

for assessment, placement, rehabilitation, and follow-up

of deaf and other students with special educational needs.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this investigation revealed significant impact

of some factors on the psychosocial adjustment of deaf

students, at the same time it raised some other issues that

should be the subject of further research. Recommen-

dations for further research include replication of this

study to provide further evidence for the validity and the

reliability of the SEAI as a research tool. Moreover, the

SEAI is designed to be rated by classroom teachers or

other adults who are in frequent contact with the stu-

dent and have opportunities to observe them. Teachers’

ratings however have been both criticized and justified.

It may be argued that teachers’ attitudes toward their

deaf students may have aff ected their observations of

students. Therefore, attitudes of teachers toward their

deaf students should be considered, especially in those

studies where teachers are participants.

Although high reliability results were found in this

study, evidence for interrater reliability of the SEAI was

not attainable due to the nature of the study. It will be

valuable if further research provides an interrater relia-

bility of the SEAI. In addition, in order to have com-

prehensive understanding of psychosocial development

of deaf students, the source of data should be various,

such as including students, teachers, and parents. Only

through this research perspective can we gain some fur-

ther knowledge in understanding complex mechanisms

involved in psychosocial development of deaf people,

and only then will we be able to off er more eff ective ed-

ucational models. The cross-sectional and correlational

nature of this study did not allow any causal direction of

the variables involved.

Although the results of this investigation provided

some evidence in understanding the variables aff ect-

ing psychosocial adjustment of deaf students, full explo-

ration of these variables is needed via longitudinal inves-

tigations. Similarly, it was not possible to have more

in-depth understanding of the impact of the variables on

psychosocial adjustment of deaf students. Therefore the

impact of these variables should be further investigated

via qualitative exploratory designs. For example, some

methods of communication used at school were found to

have a positive relationship with the psychosocial adjust-

ment of deaf students compared with other methods;

however, the researcher had no information on eff

ective-ness of use of these methods by teachers. Consequently,

results do not allow us to make any generalizations.

The data collection method used in this investigation

limited our opportunity to collect data on some poten-

tially important variables, which may have obscured the

interpretation of data. The etiology of deafness is among

these variables. It is argued that the etiology of deafness

aff ects the psychosocial adjustment of deaf students in a

complicated way (Meadow, 1980). The impact of etiol-

ogy of deafness on psychosocial adjustment of deaf stu-

dents needs to be explored in further investigations.

Some background characteristics of deaf students

prior to attendance to school are also potentially very

important on psychosocial development. Among these

are parental child-rearing attitudes and mother-child

relationships in the early years of deaf children’s lives,

argued to be crucial in optimum development of deaf

child. The literature on deafness and development sug-

gests that almost all the deficits are related to language

and communication (e.g., Meadow, 1980; Carver, 1988).

The impact of communication skills on psychosocial

development of deaf people needs to be explored in fur-

ther investigations. Speech intelligibility included as an

index of communication skills of HI students in this

study is only one dimension of communication; further

studies should investigate the relationship of other com-

munication skills (e.g., interpersonal communication,

language, expressive and receptive skills, and vocabu-

lary), as well as SI.


8/13/2019 Polat



The data collected on mainstreamed and self-

contained class students in this study are very limited. In

this study, deaf students from residential schools re-

ceived significantly better ratings on psychosocial ad-

justment. There may be some other variables that con-

tributed to the lower scores received by mainstreamed

school students. An important task of education is to

promote the social development of the child, including

aff ective relationships with peers. Peer relationships

contribute to the development of social skills that reduce

the likelihood of social isolation; support the acquisition

of attitudes, values, and information for mature func-

tioning in society; and promote psychological health.

In terms of the psychosocial development of deaf

children the debate over inclusion calls for careful con-

sideration of research findings in two important areas.

First, the students’ social experiences (e.g., interactionbetween hearing and deaf students, attitudes of hearing

students toward deaf students) in classes with hearing

peers should be compared with their experiences in res-

idential schools or in special day schools. Second, the

extent to which psychosocial development is promoted

when students are placed in classes with hearing peers

should be evaluated. The outcome of mainstreaming is

aff ected by availability and eff ectiveness of support ser-

vices. Thus, further investigation should consider this

aspect of mainstreaming.

References

Altshuler, K. Z. (1974). The social and psychological develop-

ment of the deaf child: Problems, their treatment and pre-

vention. American Annals of the Deaf, 119, 365–376.

Altshuler, K. Z. (1976). Psychiatry and problems of deafness. In

B. Bolton (Ed.) Psychology of deafness for rehabilitation of

counselors (pp. 109–124). Baltimore, MD: University Park

Press .

Aplin, D. Y. (1985). The social and emotional adjustment of

hearing-impaired children in special schools. Journal of

British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 9, 84–94.

Aplin, D. Y. (1987). The social and emotional adjustment of

hearing-impaired children in ordinary and special schools.

Educational Research, 29, 56–64.

Bauman, M. K., & Yoder, N. M. (1966). Adjustment to blindness

reviewed. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Brinich, P. M. (1980). Childhood deafness and maternal control.

Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 75–81.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Capelli, M., Daniels, D., Durieux-Smith, A., McGrath, P., &

Neuss, D. (1995). Social development of children with hear-

ing impairments. Volta Review, 97, 197–208.

Cartledge, G., Paul, P. V., Jackson, D., & Cochran, L. L. (1991).

Teachers’ perceptions of the social skills of adolescents with

hearing impairment in residential and public school settings.

Remedial and Special Education, 12, 34–39.

Chess, S.,& Fernandez, P. B. (1980).Do deaf children have a typ-

ical personality? Journal of American Academy of Child Psy-chiatry, 19, 654–664.

Cooper, F. A. (1979). Deafness, psychiatric illness and the role of

hearing loss in schizophrenia. In L. J. Bradford and W. G.

Hardy (Eds.), Hearing and Hearing-Impairment (pp. 417–

427). New York: Grune and Stratton .

Delgado, G. (1982). Beyond the norm-social maturity and deaf-

ness. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 356–360.

Desselle, D. D. (1994).Self-esteem, family climate and communi-

cation patterns in relation to deafness. American Annals of the

Deaf, 139, 322–328.

Evans, A. D., & Falk, W. W. (1986). Learning to be Deaf. New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Farrugia, D., & Austin, G. (1980). A study of social-emotional

adjustment patterns of hearing-impaired students in diff er-

ent educational settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 125,

535–541.

Freeman, R. D., Carbin, C. F., & Boese, R. J. (1981). Can’t your

child hear? A guide for those who care about deaf children. Balti-

more, MD: University Park Press.

Frustenberg, K., & Doyal, G. (1994). The relationship between

emotional-behavioural functioning and personal characteris-

tics on performance outcomes of hearing students. American

Annals of the Deaf, 139, 410–414.

Greenberg, M. T., & Kusché, C. A. (1987). Cognitive, personal

and social development of deaf children and adolescents. In

Handbook of special education Vol. 3. New York: Pergamon

Press.Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., Gustafson, R. N., & Calderon,

R. (1985). The PATHS project: A model for prevention of

psychosocial difficulties in deaf children. In G. B. Anderson

and D. Watson (Eds.): Habitation and rehabilitation of deaf

adolescents: 1984 Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC:

Galladuate College Press.

Harvey, M. A. (1989). Psychotherapy with deaf and hard of hear-

ing persons: A systemic model. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hegarty, S. Pocklington,K., & Lucas, D. (1982).Integration in ac-

tion. London: NFER-Nelson.

Hilburn, S., Marini, I., & Slate, J. R. (1997). Self-esteem among

deaf versus hearing children with deaf versus hearing par-

ents. Journal of American Deafness and Rehabilitation Associa-

tion, 30, 9–12.

Hindley, P. (1993). Signs of feeling: A prevalence study of psychiatric

disorder in deaf and partially hearing children and adolescents.

London: RNID.

Hocutt, A. M.(1996).Eff ectiveness of special education:Is place-

ment the critical factor? Future of Children, 6, 77–99.

Hoff meister, R. J.(1985). Families with deaf parents: A functional

perspective. In K. Thurman (Ed.), Handicapped families:

Functional perspectives. New York: Academic Press.

8/13/2019 Polat



Jensema, J., & Trybus, R. J. (1978). Communication patterns and

educational achievements of hearing impaired students. Wash-

ington, DC: Office of Demographic Studies.

Kvam, M. H. (1993). Hard of hearing pupils in ordinary schools.

Scandinavian Audiology, 22, 2 61–267.

Leigh, I. W. (1999). Inclusive education and personal develop-

ment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 236–245.

Loeb, R., & Sarigani, P. (1986). The impact of hearing impairmenton self-perceptions of children.The Volta Review,88, 89–100.

Luckner, J. L. (1991).Promoting the aff ective development of the

deaf students with hearing impairments. ACEHI Journal, 17,

77–87.

Lynas, W. (1986).Integrating the handicapped into ordinary schools.

London: Croom Helm.

Lytle, R. R., Feinstein, C., & Jonas, B. (1987). Social and emo-

tional adjustment in deaf adolescents after transfer to a resi-

dential school for the deaf. Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 237–241.

Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological Development of Deaf Chil-

dren. London: Oxford University Press.

Meadow, K. P. (1967). The e ff ect of early manual communication

and family climate on deaf child’s development. Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Meadow, K. P. (1968a). Early manual communication in relation

to deaf child’s intelligence, social and communicative func-

tioning. American Annals of the Deaf, 113, 21–41.

Meadow, K. P. (1968b).Parental response to the medical ambigu-

ities of congenital deafness. Journal of Health and Social Be-

havior, 9, 299–309.

Meadow, K. P. (1972).Sociolinguistics,sign language and the deaf

subculture.In T. J.O’Rourke (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and to-

tal communication: The state of the art. American Annals of

the Deaf, 117, 19–33.

Meadow, K. P. (1975). The development of deaf children. In

E. M. Hetherington, J. W. Hagen, R. Kron, & A. H. Stein(Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol.5). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Meadow, K. P. (1976). Personality and social development of deaf

persons. In B. Bolton (Ed.), Psychology of deafness for rehabil-

itation counselors ( pp. 67–80). Baltimore, MD: University

Park Press.

Meadow, K. P. (1978).The “natural history” of a research project:

An illustration of methodological issues in research with deaf

children. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), Deaf children: Developmental

perspectives ( pp. 21–40). New York: Academic Press.

Meadow, K. P. (1980). Deafness and child development. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Meadow, K. P. (1983). Meadow-Kendall Social-Emotional Assess-

ment Inventory for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Students Man-

ual. Washington, DC: Galladuet College.

Meadow, K. P. & Dyssegaard, B. (1983). Teacher’s ratings of deaf

children: An American-Danish comparison. American An-

nals of the Deaf, 128, 900 –908.

Meadow, K. P. & Schlesinger, H. S.(1976).Studies of family inter-

action, language acquisition and deafness. San Francisco: Uni-

versity of California Press.

Mertens, D. M. (1989). Social experiences of hearing-impaired

high school youth. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 21–25.

Mertens,D. M. (1993).A conceptual model for academic achieve-

ment.In D. F. Moores & K. P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.) Educa-

tional and developmental aspect of deafness (pp.25–72). Wash-

ington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Mindel, E., & Vernon, M. C. (1971). They grow in silence. Silver

Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Montgomery, G., & Napier, S. (2001). The teachers’ assessment

guide (TAG):A systematic approach to assess deafpupils’ ac-ademic ability, behavior in school and social maturity. Deaf-

ness and Education International, 3( 3), 109–122.

Musselman, C., Mootilal, A., & Mackay, S. (1996).The social ad-

justment of deaf adolescents in segregated, partially inte-

grated and mainstreamed settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 1, 52–63.

Myklebust, H. R. (1960). Psychology of deafness: Sensory depriva-

tion, learning and adjustment. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Nunes, T., Pretzslik, U., & Olsson, J. (2001). Deaf children’s so-

cial relationships in mainstream schools. Deafness and Educa-

tion International, 3(3), 123–136.

Pflaster, G. (1980). A factor analysis of variables related to aca-

demic program of hearing-impaired children in regular clas-

ses. The Volta Review, 82(2), 71–84.

Polat, F. (1998a). Social and emotional adjustment of hearing-

impaired students in Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Uni-

versity of Manchester, England.

Polat, F. (1998b). The Turkish adaptation of the Meadow/

Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory for hearing-

impaired and deaf students. Paper presented at XIVth Congress

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, August 1998, Bellingham, WA.

Rainer, J. D., Althuser, K. Z., & Kallmann,F. (1969). Family men-

tal health problems in a deaf population (2nd ed.). Springfield,

IL: Charles C Thomas.

Reich, C.,Hambelton, D., & Houldin, B. (1977). The integration

of hearing impaired children in regular classrooms. American

Annals of the Deaf, 122, 534–543.Rodda, M. (1966). Social adjustment of hearing-impaired adoles-

cents. The Volta Review, 68, 279–318.

Rodda, M., & Grove, C. (1987). Language, cognition and deafness.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sarfaty, L., & Katz, S. (1978). The self-concept and adjustment

patterns of hearing-impaired pupils in diff erent school set-

tings. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 438–441.

Schlesinger, H. S., & Meadow, K. P. (1972). Sound and sign:

Childhood deafness and mental health. Berkeley, CA: Univer-

sity of California Press.

Sinkkonen, J. (1994). Hearing impairment, communication and per-

sonality development. Helsinki, Department of Child Psychi-

atry: University of Helsinki.

Stinson, M. S., & Antia, S. D. (1999). Considerations in educat-

ing deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4( 3), 163–175.

van Gurp, S. (2001). Self-concept of deaf secondary school stu-

dents in diff erent educational settings. Journal of Deaf Stud-

ies and Deaf Education, 6(1), 54–69.

Vernon, M., & Andrews, J. E. (1993). Psychology of deafness: Un-

derstanding deaf and hard of hearing people. New York: Long-

man Press.

Vostansin, P., Hayes, M, Du Feu, M., & Warren, J. (1997). Detec-

8/13/2019 Polat



tion of behavioural and emotional problems in deaf children

and adolescents: Comparison of two rating scales. Child Care,

Health and Development, 23, 233–246.

Wedell-Monning, J., & Lumley, J. M. (1980). Child deafness and

mother-child interaction. Child Development, 51, 766–774.

Weisel, A. (1988). Parental hearing status, reading comprehension

skills and social-emotional adjustment. American Annals of

the Deaf, 133, 356–359.

Received August 19, 2002; revisions received November 8, 2002;

accepted December 5, 2002

polat

Documents