Assessment of sign language development: The case of deaf children in the Netherlands

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 107-119

  Hermans, Daan ^a   Knoors, Harry ^b   Verhoeven, Ludo ^b  

^a ROYAL DUTCH KENTALIS   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPUTER; EDUCATION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGN LANGUAGE; STANDARD; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPUTERS; DEAFNESS; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; NARRATION; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGN LANGUAGE; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77950956926     PISSN: 10814159     EISSN: 14657325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enp030     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 83-106.
2. Baker, A. E., & Jansma, S. (2005). NGT-OP: Een screening instrument voor peuters in de Nederlands Gebaren taal en handleiding [NGT-OP: A screening instrument for young children and handbook]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
3. Bos, H. F. (1990). Person and location marking in SLN: Some implications of a spatially expressed syntactic system. In S. Prillwitz & T. Vollhaber (Eds.), Current trends in European sign language research (pp. 231-246). Hamburg, Germany: Signum.
4. Bos, H. F. (1993). Agreement and prodrop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In F. Drykoningen & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 37-48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
5. Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608-635.
6. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.
7. Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between American Sign Language and Reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Chamberlain, C., & May berry, R.I. (2008) .American Sign Language syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled readers: Bilingual and bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 367-388.
9. Coerts, J. (1992). Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
10. Crasborn, O. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.
11. Dubuisson, C., Parisot, A.-M., & Vercaigne-Menard, A. (2008). Bilingualism and deafness: Correlations between deaf students' ability to use space in Quebec Sign Language and their reading comprehension in French. In C. Plaza Pust & E. Moralez-Lopez (Eds.), Sign bilingualism: Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations (pp. 51-71). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
12. Harder, R., & Schermer, T. (1986). A first phonological analysis of handshapes in the Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN). In B. Tervoort (Ed.), Signs of life. Proceedings of the 2nd European congress on sign language research (pp. 47-51). Amsterdam: Dutch Foundation for the Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Child.
13. Haug, T. (2005). Review of sign language assessment instruments. Sign Language & Linguistics, 8, 61-98.
14. Haug, T., & Mann, W. (2005). Projekt Gebardensprachtest-Entwicklung von Testverfahren zur Deutschen Gebar-densprache fur gehorlose Kinder und Jugendliche [Project sign language test-Development of test instruments for German sign language for deaf children and adolescent]. Das Zeichen, 71, 370-380.
15. Haug, T., & Mann, W. (2008). Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign languages-A review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 138-147.
16. Herman, R. (1998). The need for an assessment of deaf children's signing skills. Deafness & Education, 4, 3-8.
17. Herman, R., Holmes, S., & Woll, B. (1999). Assessing BSL development-Receptive skills test. Coleford, England: Forest Bookshop.
18. Herman, R., & Roy, P. (2006). Evidence from the wider use of the BSL receptive skills test. Deafness and Education International, 8, 33-47.
19. Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). An assessment instrument for Sign Language of the Netherlands. Viataal: Sint-Michielsgestel.
20. Hoffmeister, R. J. (1999). American Sign Language assessment instrument (ASLAI). Unpublished test, Center for the Study of Communication & the Deaf, Boston University, Boston.
21. Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 143-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Hoiting, N. (2005). Deaf children are verb attenders: Early sign vocabulary development in Dutch toddlers. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in sign language development of deaf children (pp. 161-188). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Jansma, S., Knoors, H., & Baker, A. E. (1997). Sign language assessment: A Dutch project. Deafness & Education, 21, 39-46.
24. Johnson, T. (2004). The assessment and achievement of proficiency in a native sign language within a sign bilingual program: The pilot Auslan receptive skills test. Deafness and Education International, 6, 57-81.
25. Knoors, H. (1992). Exploratie van de gebarenruimte. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Eburon, Koninklijke Amman-stichting Rotterdam, Delft.
26. Knoors, H. (2007). Educational responses to varying objectives of parents of deaf children: A Dutch perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 243-232.
27. Law, J., Boyle, J., Harris, F., Harkness, A., & Nye, C. (1998). Screening for speech and language delay: A systematic review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment, 2(9), 1-184.
28. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29. Maller, S., Singleton, J., Suppalla, S., & Wix, T. (1999). The development and psychometric properties of the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 249-269.
30. Mann, W. (2007). German deaf children's understanding of referential distinction in written German and German Sign Language. Educational & Child Psychology, 24, 59-76.
31. Mann, W., & Prinz, P. (2006). The perception of sign language assessment by professionals in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 356-370.
32. McCarthy, D. (1954). Language development in children. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child Psychology. New York: Wiley.
33. Mounty, J. (1993). Signed language development checklist-Training manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
34. Mounty, J. (1994). Signed language development checklist. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35. Niederberger, N. (2008). Does the knowledge of a natural sign language facilitate Deaf children's learning to read and write? Insights from French Sign Language and written French data. In C. Plaza Pust & E. Moralez-Lopez (Eds.), Sign bilingualism: Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations (pp. 39-50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
36. Ormel, E. (2008). Visual word recognition in bilingual deaf children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
37. Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Prinz, P., Strong, M., & Kuntze, M. (1994). The test of ASL. Unpublished test, San Francisco State University, California Research Institute, San Francisco.
39. Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Barker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery for Australian sign language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 18-40.
40. Singleton, J. L., & Supalla, S. (2003). Assessing children's proficiency in natural signed languages. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (pp. 289-302). New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Schermer, G. M. (1983). Het communicatiesysteem van volwassen doven in Nederland. In B. Th. Tervoort(Ed.), Hand over hand (pp. 9-24). Muiderberg, The Netherlands: Coutinho.
42. Schermer, G. M. (1990). In search of a language. Influences from spoken Dutch on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
43. Schermer, G. M., Fortgens, C., Harder, R., & de Nobel, E. (1991). De Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Twello, The Netherlands: Van Tricht.
44. Schermer, T., & Koolhof, C. (1990). The reality of time-lines: Aspects of tense in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In S. Prillwitz & T. Vollhaber (Eds.), Current trends in European sign language research (pp. 295-305). Hamburg, Germany: Signum.
45. Snijders, J. Th., Tellegen, P. J., & Laros, J. A. (1998). Snijders-Oomen Niet-verbale Intelligentietest [Snijders-Oomen test of nonverbal intelligence]. Amsterdam: Boom.
46. Strong, M., & Prinz, P. M. (1997). A study of the relationship between ASL and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 37-46.
47. Strong, M., & Prinz, P. M. (2000). Is American Sign Language related to English Literacy? In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 131-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. van der Kooij, E. (2002). Reducing phonological categories in Sign language of the Netherlands. Phonetic implementation and iconic motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.
49. van Eldik, M.C.M., Schlichting, J.E.P.T., Lutje Spelberg, H.C., van der Meulen, B. F., & Van der Meulen, Sj (2003). Reynell test voor Taalbegrip [Reynell test for language comprehension]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets.
50. van Gijn, I. (2004). The quest for syntactic dependency. Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Un-published doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.
51. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2001). Taaltoets alle kinderen [Language test for all children]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Citogroep.
52. Verhulst-Schlichting, J. E. P. T., Morelli-Kaiser, M., & Peddemors-Boon, M. (1987). Sex and family background inearlylanguageacquisition. In D. Brouwer & D. de Haan (Eds.), Women's language, socialisation and selfimage (pp. 24-65). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
53. White, A., & Tischler, S. (1999). Receptive sign vocabulary tests: Tests of signword vocabulary or iconicity? American Annals for the Deaf, 144, 334-338.
54. Zink, I., & Lejaegere, M. (2002). N-CDIs: lijsten voor communicatieve ontwikkeling [N-CDIs: Lists for communicative development]. Leuven, The Netherlands: Acco.
55. Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.