Assessing Resilience in Students Who Are Deaf or Blind: Supplementing Standardized Achievement Testing
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessing Resilience in Students Who Are Deaf or Blind: Supplementing Standardized Achievement Testing |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Butler, Michelle A., Katayama, Andrew D., Schindling, Casey, Dials, Katherine |
| Source: | Journal of Educational Research. 2018 111(3):352-362. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2018 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | High Schools |
| Descriptors: | Deafness, Blindness, Resilience (Psychology), Student Evaluation, Evaluation Methods, Standardized Tests, Achievement Tests, Visual Impairments, Hearing Impairments, High School Students, Correlation, Grade Point Average, Hypothesis Testing, Special Schools, Teacher Surveys, Parent Surveys, Student Surveys, Testing Accommodations |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00220671.2016.1264052 |
| ISSN: | 0022-0671 |
| Abstract: | Although testing accommodations for standardized assessments are available for students with disabilities, interpretation remains challenging. The authors explored resilience to see if it could contribute to the interpretation of academic success for students who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision. High school students (30 deaf, 11 blind) responded to the Resiliency Scales and a school-specific resilience survey. Student ratings were within 1 SD of those who were not deaf or blind; resilience was positively correlated with academic success (grade point average). Resilience information may contribute to the interpretation of academic success in students who are deaf or blind and may provide insight into potential interventions. This is the first time students who are deaf or blind have been assessed on a published measure of resilience. Results defy stereotypes and affirm that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision have more in common with the hearing and seeing world than is often recognized. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 42 |
| Entry Date: | 2018 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1172981 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHYS8FBJo3NlmhDGZtuMuZPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNKV94sAat3YYyIIDQIBEICBm3rsGDZXHJz_uOyUZFSszJqecxzFZp1h6NCKLconhneTl3XknxBAGXdLUeJce8sgeV3lcdbSwwpZqU_NV9xDv3AlO99UXslm-vPAaQFrK5AuqO_hJlLrON_Qxcj9pFbxxPr4qTVrJ4LmnBy-swRRwEbidmUvY5X09feFrA8hgTgUKcETcQHE7pb-R6XsMPWWqqwiMDju9gSaFZyy Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0128295170;ere01may.18;2019Feb01.08:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128295170-1">Assessing resilience in students who are deaf or blind: Supplementing standardized achievement testing. </title> <p>Although testing accommodations for standardized assessments are available for students with disabilities, interpretation remains challenging. The authors explored resilience to see if it could contribute to the interpretation of academic success for students who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision. High school students (30 deaf, 11 blind) responded to the Resiliency Scales and a school-specific resilience survey. Student ratings were within 1 SD of those who were not deaf or blind; resilience was positively correlated with academic success (grade point average). Resilience information may contribute to the interpretation of academic success in students who are deaf or blind and may provide insight into potential interventions. This is the first time students who are deaf or blind have been assessed on a published measure of resilience. Results defy stereotypes and affirm that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision have more in common with the hearing and seeing world than is often recognized.</p> <p>Keywords: Blindness; deafness; disabilities; resilience, stereotypes</p> <p>The present approach for measuring academic achievement for students within public primary and secondary education typically includes compulsory, standardized assessments with benchmarks that are best understood within the context of mainstream education. This type of assessment is common in educational systems throughout the United States; however, some aspects of standardized achievement testing make the administration unfeasible or unfair to certain students, particularly students with disabilities (Finn et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]; Sireci, Scarpati, &amp; Shuhong, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). If appropriate, a school can be designated as an Alternative Education Campus or a Title I Focus School if the performance and growth of students is not comparable to typical peers. These designations add critical information for accurate data interpretation regarding a specialized population.</p> <p>Test accommodations can further increase fairness so the format of the test, or the test conditions, do not unduly prevent students from demonstrating their true knowledge, skills, and abilities. The practice of using an accommodated standardized test is controversial because some argue the test scores from nonstandard test administrations may not be comparable to standard administrations (Sireci et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]). As an example, Nester ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]) stated that for the majority of individuals who are deaf and lost their hearing prespeech, verbal tests are not meaningful measures of any ability. In these instances, accommodations can help level the playing field, but it remains controversial if they can do this effectively.</p> <p>Beginning in 1890 with Cattell, those representing the early psychological testing movement viewed differences, rather than similarities, between people to be the appropriate object of study (Geisinger, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]). The negative connotation is plainly seen in the title of Binet and Simon's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]) seminal article on intelligence testing, "Upon the Necessity of Establishing a Scientific Diagnosis of Inferior States of Intelligence." Standardized testing data, even within the context of certain designations and accommodations, has the potential to focus on these differences and perpetuate negative stereotypes about individuals who are deaf or blind.</p> <p>Standardized achievement tests are designed to measure a few key performance domains and do not pretend to describe an individual's complete strengths and challenges; however, they do reflect cultural values. Because the data exist and our U.S. culture values the domains measured, these data can be negatively construed if an individual does not perform well on the domains of interest (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics). This risk applies to all students, not only those in underrepresented groups, such as those with disabilities. In the case of students who are deaf or blind, these data may overemphasize challenges and minimize strengths. Given these potential risks, it is critical to consider multiple, meaningful measures of performance (American Psychological Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the passage of the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, which entitles each student with a disability to a free appropriate public education to meet his or her unique needs, cultural stereotypes of disability persist. In a recent empirical study, Nario-Redmond ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]) asked participants to describe the characteristics of men and women with a disability and those without a disability and found a consistent set of beliefs. Compared to individuals without a disability, individuals with a disability were frequently categorized as dependent, incompetent, and asexual, among other negative traits, confirming that the deep history of negative stereotyping was not eradicated by the IDEA or by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enacted the same year.</p> <p>The American Psychological Association ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]) added "Many people with disabilities continue to encounter blatant discrimination in employment, housing, education, recreation, childrearing, healthcare, and mental health services" (p. 43). This type of prejudice and discrimination can put a heavy burden on targeted individuals. Testimony to Congress during enactment of the ADA highlighted the consequences of prejudice and discrimination on the lives of individuals with disabilities (West, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]). Society erroneously commits the fundamental attribution error when making these uninformed judgments, focusing on the role and responsibility of the individual, rather than factors that are culturally driven and biased (Nario-Redmond, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref11">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, socially constructed images of individuals, which reinforce undesirable characteristics, can harm an individual's self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy, often creating self-fulfilling prophecies that can limit meaningful opportunities in society. Although progress has been made regarding fair access, individuals with disabilities continue to experience higher unemployment rates and proportionately fewer college degrees than those without disabilities (Asch, Rousso, &amp; Jeffries, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]). The reasons for this disparity are multidimensional, but the role of negative stereotypes should not be overlooked. Stereotypes are generated from a lack of experience with the groups in question and are perpetuated by a culture that continues to endorse them (Butler, Scharff, &amp; Packard, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Cambra, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]; Nario-Redmond, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]; Pettigrew &amp; Tropp, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]). Standardized testing models, although well intentioned, may perpetuate this lack of understanding.</p> <p>What if educational testing included nonacademic, but academically related, constructs to help conceptualize academic success? Might these constructs even offer potential interventions to improve academic success? Here, we examine resilience as a potential construct for consideration.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-2">Resilience and success</hd> <p>Resilience has been defined as "a positive pattern of adaptation in the context of adversity" (Masten &amp; Obradovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>], p. 14) and definitions of resilience include components of mastery or competence, social relatedness, and emotional stability (de Villiers &amp; van den Berg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]; Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]; Prince-Embury &amp; Steer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]; Theron, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]). Today, resilience is defined as "the capacity of a dynamic system to withstand or recover from significant challenges that threaten its stability, viability, or development" (Masten, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>], p. 494). By contrast, resilience can also be considered the inverse of certain negative stereotypes, namely incompetence, dependence, vulnerability and weakness.</p> <p>Today, the research clearly supports the "ordinariness" of resilience, how it is the rule, not the exception. Although there may be certain temperaments, personality traits, and information-processing abilities that one is born with that may serve to protect against adversity, the majority of protective factors are now thought to be environmental in nature and therefore malleable (de Villiers &amp; van den Berg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]; Masten &amp; Obradovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref25">30</reflink>]). Some researchers have gone beyond the basics of environmental factors and are calling for explicit, evidence-based interventions delivered through agents of change (e.g., teachers, school psychologists) to help improve students' lives (Masten, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]; Theron, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]; Theron, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]; Theron &amp; Donald, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the general population, resilience (or its components) has been negatively correlated with academic burnout (Rahmati, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]) and positively correlated with healthy school and after-school experiences (Gilligan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]), intellectual ability, easy temperament, autonomy, sociability, effective coping strategies, communication skills, positive family support, good peer relations, positive relationships with other adults, and academic success (Hudson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]; see Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]). Dahlbeck and Lightsey ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]) found that high resilience was correlated with self-esteem, happiness, well-being, and low anxiety. Other studies added that high resilience was correlated with strong academic performance, effective communication, active participation in activities, and exposure to strong role models (Ahlert &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]; Charlson, Bird, &amp; Strong, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]; de Villiers &amp; van den Berg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Rogers, Muir, &amp; Raimonde Evenson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]). Given the well-documented correlation between resilience and life success, we chose resilience as a potential correlate of academic success in individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) or blind or have low vision (BLV).</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-3">Resilience in individuals who are deaf or blind</hd> <p>There are several studies that have explored resilience as it applies to disabilities in general or as it applies to specific types of disabilities, such as blindness, deafness, or spinal cord injury (Ahlert &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]; Berry, Elliott, &amp; Rivera, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]; Charlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]; Dahlbeck &amp; Lightsey, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]; de Klerk &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]; Pollard &amp; Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]; Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]; White, Driver, &amp; Warren, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]). In each of these studies, the authors have asserted that disability has the potential to be experienced as adversity and a challenge to adaptation, thereby making it an appropriate object of study within the resilience literature.</p> <p>Although individuals who are deaf or blind may experience adversity due to their challenges, resilience data on individuals who are deaf or blind are lacking. The studies that have been done include: interviews with families who have a child with a visual impairment (de Klerk &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]), interviews with young adults who are blind which explored the benefits of leisure activities (Jessup, Cornell, &amp; Bundy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]), case studies of exemplars of resilience in high school students or adults who are deaf (Charlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]; Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]), and a mixed-methods large group study of families who have a child who is deaf (Ahlert &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]). Specifically, the two exemplar studies of individuals who are deaf share some common themes. Charlson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref52">9</reflink>]) found that those who successfully overcame adversity tended to be: independent, assertive, good-natured, proactive problem solvers who had a strong sense of internal control and personal commitment. Rogers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>]) noted many of the same personal qualities as Charlson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]), but added optimism, mastery, social connectedness, high efficacy or esteem, awareness of strengths, nurturing school or home environments, and strong self-reliance and self-advocacy.</p> <p>In the study of resilience in parents of children with visual impairments, 10 parents of young adults were interviewed. Results showed that family values (i.e., attitude toward disability, religious faith, and family closeness) contribute to a process of inclusion (due to use of resources and acceptance of help) and the development of a sense of accomplishment (deKlerk &amp; Greeff, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]). Although further study is required, it could be envisioned how family resilience has the potential to positively impact resilience of the child with the impairment. In another study, the relationship between leisure activities and resilience was examined in eight individuals who were BLV. Seven of the eight participants who were interviewed stated that leisure activities provided benefits such as social connections, being accepted, relief from stress, support in adversity, fitness and health, learning and experiencing new things, being challenged, having fun, contributing to others, and resisting social prejudice. These benefits were aligned with findings from previous research on the resilience-promoting benefits of leisure activities in those without sensory impairments (Jessup et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the studies noted previously may have limited generalizability and predictability, it is no surprise that the correlates of resilience in the general population are also reflected in those with disabilities. In contrast to previous studies, in the present study we examined resilience through the perceptions of children, their parents, and teachers, and that although prior studies have associated overcoming adversity and functioning in different domains, none of them systematically explored the relationship between resilience and academic functioning in this population. Another contribution of the present study that does not appear in former studies is that it directly examined how environmental aspects (i.e., the educational and family settings) may be related to resilience. Additionally, we used a mixed-methods design that included a published measure of resilience with population norms, and we examined a larger sample to build on earlier research designs that were mostly qualitative in nature and had small sample sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-4">The present study</hd> <p>The objectives of the present study were (a) to determine if resilience data could help interpret academic success for students who are DHH or BLV and (b) to understand the nature of resilience in students who are DHH or BLV to better evaluate its relevance and appropriateness for this purpose.</p> <p>Given the positive correlation between academic success and resilience in the general population, we wanted to determine if this relationship existed for high school students who were either DHH or BLV. The literature offered no reason to preselect students who scored within a particular grade point average (GPA) range; therefore, we obtained students' present GPA scores from the school after students obtained permission and agreed to participate in the study. In addition, given our relatively small sample size, preselecting based on academic performance would further decrease sample size and limit interpretation. By including all students' with varying GPA scores, we were able to examine the upper and lower points of the potential correlation between academic success and resilience. Participants' GPA scores mirrored what would be found at a mainstream high school.</p> <p>Participants were recruited from a state-funded school (originally established in 1874) that was created for the purpose of providing comprehensive educational services for children, birth to 21 years old, who are BLV or DHH. Services are provided directly to students enrolled at the school (preschool through high school), and outreach programs serve students, staff, and families in communities throughout the state. The total enrollment from 2013–2014 was 507 (0–21 years old), including 85 residential students (3–21 years old) and 131 day students (3–21 years old) served on campus (given the distance that many students must travel from their homes to the school, residential students stay at the school during the week and return home on weekends). The school seeks to empower learners to become self-determined, independent, contributing citizens within their communities.</p> <p>We formulated the following hypotheses:</p> <p>Hypothesis 1: Resilience would be positively correlated with (a) academic success as measured by GPA scores, (b) having a family member who shares the same sensory challenge, and (c) student engagement in sports or extracurricular activities.</p> <p>Hypothesis 2: Resilience would be higher among students if (a) a student has spent more time at the school, (b) the student is residential, and (c) the student was from a town that was in close proximity to the school.</p> <p>Hypothesis 3: Resilience would be similar at school as in other settings.</p> <p>In light of previous claims that disability has the potential to be experienced as adversity and a challenge to adaptation, a critical question we asked was, "Will DHH and BLV students report similar resilience levels as individuals without sensory challenges?" In addition, we had no specific predictions for how parents, staff and students would rate resilience at the school or if they would state the school supported or interfered with resilience or success. This was an empirical question worth exploring in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0128295170-6">Participants</hd> <p>Students, staff, and parents were recruited from a state-funded school for the deaf and the blind in the Western part of the United States. Data were collected from 42 high school students; however, data from one participant were eliminated due to extreme responding with no variance. Therefore, 41 student data sets were analyzed.</p> <p>The final sample included 30 student participants who were DHH and 11 student participants who were BLV. The levels of deafness in the individuals who were DHH were mild profound (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>), moderate profound (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>), moderate severe (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>), severe profound (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>), profound (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>), and not reported (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>). Of the students with vision loss, six had low vision and five had severe vision loss.</p> <p>Twelve students of the 30 who were DHH had their loss from an early age (exact age unknown) and causes for deafness varied: hereditary (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>), prematurity (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>), meningitis (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>), cytomegalovirus (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>), Mondini malformation (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>), enlarged aqueduct (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>), auditory neuropathy (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>), Chicken pox (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>), and unknown (<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref71">15</reflink>). All students who were DHH had varying degrees of fluency in American sign language (ASL). Although all participants had their loss from an early age, causes for vision loss varied and included retinopathy of prematurity (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>), Leber's disease (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>), bilateral optic atrophy (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>), albinism (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>), Battons' syndrome (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>), and unknown (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>).</p> <p>Ages ranged from 14 to 19 years old for each group. The mean age of students who were DHH was 16.83 years old (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.48 years), and the mean age of students who were BLV was 16.54 years old (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.44 years). These samples are representative of the general numbers of students in the school for the deaf versus numbers of students in the school for the blind. Of the 41 students in our sample, 18 were young men (44%) and 23 were young women (56%). Within the DHH subgroup, 10 were young men (33%) and 20 were young women (67%). Within the BLV subgroup, 8 were young men (73%) and 3 were young women (27%).</p> <p>Overall, 11 students were in Grade 9, 9 were in Grade 10, 9 were in Grade 11, and 12 were in Grade 12. Duration of time at the school ranged from 15 years to less than one year, averaging four years. Twenty-nine students lived on campus and 12 students lived off campus. GPA scores ranged from 2.16 to 3.77 (<emph>M</emph> = 2.99, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.89). Seventeen students were local; 24 students were from surrounding cities. Ethnic or racial background was the following: 20 Caucasian, 13 Hispanic, 5 African American, 2 Asian, and 1 Native American or Alaskan.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-7">Materials and procedure</hd> <p>A research announcement and informed consent document (English or Spanish versions) were mailed to parents of high school students (<emph>n</emph> = 70). The study was explained in detail so parents could decide if they would approve of their child participating. If they agreed to allow their child to participate, parents were asked to sign the informed consent document which indicated that they understood the nature of the study, that their child's participation would be completely voluntary, and that they could withdraw participation at any time. When appropriate, verbal phone consent was permitted to enroll an individual in the study and signatures were subsequently obtained. Once the parents submitted their approval, the students were fully informed so they could make their final decision regarding participation. If the student agreed to participate, the details of the study were further communicated and his or her name was entered into a raffle for a gift card to a local restaurant. Additionally, the research announcement was distributed to school staff informing them of the study and that their participation would be anonymous. All information regarding the child and his or her data were kept confidential, with only the school superintendent and research team having access to the information. An Institutional Review Board approved the research.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-8">Assessing resilience in children at a school for the deaf and the blind</hd> <p>To better understand the nature of resilience in this population, each student was asked to respond to a published questionnaire on resilience, the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA; Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>]; Weiss, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref82">39</reflink>]). The scales included the Sense of Mastery Scale, which evaluates optimism, self-efficacy, and adaptability, and the Sense of Relatedness Scale, which evaluates trust, support, comfort, and tolerance. When a child has a strong sense of mastery, he or she feels competent and confident when performing a task, and when a child has a strong sense of relatedness, he or she feels securely connected to individuals in a social context. Each scale included 20–24 questions rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (<emph>never</emph>) to 4 (<emph>almost always</emph>) to assess resilience in these specific domains. Subscale raw scores were computed by adding each raw subscale score, which yielded a total raw score for mastery and relatedness, then converted to scaled scores for comparison purposes. Measures of internal consistency, test–retest stability and validity of the RSCA are all rated in the moderate to high range (Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref83">27</reflink>]). This is the first time students who are DHH or BLV have been assessed on a published measure of resilience for a research study.</p> <p>Given the documented relationship between environmental factors and resilience, we were particularly interested in the school's contribution to resilience. Each student was administered a school-specific version of the RSCA that we designed to highlight the student's sense of mastery and relatedness specific to his or her experience at school (see Teddlie &amp; Tashakkori, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). Because the RSCA is a valid and reliable measure of resilience and is theoretically sound, we modeled the school-specific version after the RSCA. Therefore, the school-specific version, similar to the RSCA, includes similar questions that relate to mastery and relatedness but are focused on their specific school experience. Two versions of the school-specific survey were created to accommodate either DHH or BLV (see the Appendix).</p> <p>Demographic information was mostly acquired through school records to provide a comprehensive description of participants and included name, age, gender, grade, date of enrollment, residential or day student, school enrollment, duration of deafness or blindness, congenital or acquired deficit, academic achievement, proximity to home, and race or ethnicity. Students were asked on the school-specific survey about whether family members are DHH or BLV, whether family members are proficient in sign language, if they attended other schools, and whether they participate in sports or extracurricular activities. The italicized factors were variables that were tested as potential correlates of resilience.</p> <p>For the students who were DHH, an ASL interpreter, with whom the students were familiar, videotaped an ASL version of the RSCA and the school-specific version. Both assessments were administered in a small group setting in a quiet room at the school with ASL interpreters and research assistants available to answer student questions. A counselor from the school for the blind read the survey questions to the five students who were blind and recorded their responses. The six students who were low vision received accommodations, such as enlarged print, to respond independently. The RSCA and school-specific version were administered to each group in a small group setting in a quiet room at the school with research assistants and counselors available to answer questions. Group testing times ranged from 20 to 45 min with most students finishing closer to 45 min because they viewed the ASL video for interpretation. All testing procedures, with modifications, followed standardized testing protocol for the RSCA (Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>To provide additional insight on the nature of resilience at the school, we obtained a multirater perspective beyond the students. We asked staff and parents to anonymously respond to the school-specific survey and to report student resilience from their perspective (i.e., parents assessed resilience in their child; staff assessed resilience in students overall; see Lucas, Collins, &amp; Langdon, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref86">19</reflink>]). This allowed for a general, unmatched comparison among student, staff and parent perspectives. The same version of the school-specific survey was administered to both parents and staff. Staff had the opportunity to respond to the survey during department meetings, and parents could respond to the survey they received in the mail or could opt to respond to a survey while on campus (see the Appendix).</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-9">Identifying factors within educational practice impacting resilience</hd> <p>Students, parents, and staff shared open-ended information about factors at the school that contribute to resilience or that could be improved. This allowed for a comparison among student, parent, and staff perspectives to better understand the nature of resilience at the school and to determine if resilience was a relevant construct for interpreting academic success. We had no specific predictions about how the groups would respond. See Table 1 and Table 2 for a breakdown of these open-ended questions.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive for open-ended response: "Does the school contribute to your/student success? In what way?"</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Yes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;No&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Other/no response&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt; Top 5 reasons&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Students&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;75.60&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt; 4.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;19.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Teachers help (43.90)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Helps solve problems (14.60)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Provides support (14.60)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Grades improved (7.30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Have friends like me (7.30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/no reason (31.60)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Staff/faculty&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;76.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;23.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Excellent staff (28.90)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Learning activities (18.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Teaches Independence (17.30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Individual instruction (11.50)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Promotes self-esteem (10.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/no reason (47.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Parents&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;80.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;20.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Caring staff (25.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Promotes self-esteem (22.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Individual instruction (17.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Teaches independence (14.20)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Learning activities (11.40)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/No Reason (54.20)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive for open-ended response: "How could the school help students be more successful?" "Does the school interfere with your/student success? In what way?"</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Yes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;No&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Other/no response&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Top reasons&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Students&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;29.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;39.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;31.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Not understood (9.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Want more freedom (7.30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;No foreign language (4.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/no reason (82.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Staff/faculty&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;28.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;17.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;53.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Low expectations (13.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Administration (10.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Enables students (8.60)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Shelters students (4.30)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Lacks key resources (2.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/no reason (68.0)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Parents&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;11.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;65.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;22.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Low expectations (5.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Improve teaching (2.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;More courses/teachers (2.80)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Other/no reason (88.50)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0128295170-10">Results</hd> <p>Forty-one of 70 total students (58.57%) responded to the objective portion of both surveys and the open-ended questions. Forty-one of 175 total parents (23.42%), representing various high school grade levels, responded to the objective portion of the school-specific survey, and 35 of 175 (20.0%) parents responded to open-ended questions. Eighty-three of 190 (43.68%) total staff members responded to the objective portion of the school-specific survey, and 69 of 190 (36.31%) staff members anonymously responded to the open-ended questions. Staff included faculty and a variety of professionals who interact with students on a regular basis. Some participants did not respond to every question.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-11">Assessing resilience in children at a school for the deaf and the blind</hd> <p>For RSCA norming purposes, a community sample of 254 adolescents was tested between 2004 and 2005, and an adolescent norming sample of 200 children who had not been currently receiving psychiatric services was selected from this larger pool (Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref87">27</reflink>]). A stratified random sampling plan ensured that the standardization sample included representative proportions of children from each selected demographic variable. The 2002 U.S. Bureau of the Census provided the basis for stratification by race or ethnicity and education level within each age group, and although the goal was stratification across the total sample, selection also considered stratification by sex and by age. Distribution of the sample approximated stratification across the four census regions of the United States, and 5% of the sample consisted of clinical cases to match an average of estimates cited to exist within the U.S. population of adolescents. As no significant differences were found between males and females on the RSCA, norms combine scores from young men and young women (Prince-Embury, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>For this study, we compared our sample of students (58.57% response rate) to the published norms provided for the adolescent standardization sample for 15–18-year-olds with no clinical diagnoses or sensory challenges. Under typical assessment circumstances, we would want to compare test data to norms that are most similar to the group being assessed. In this case, there were no norms available for individuals with sensory deficits and more importantly, we were interested in how students who are DHH or BLV would compare to the general population without sensory deficits on resilience.</p> <p>The total group (DHH and BLV) responded within one standard deviation of the population norms on both the mastery and relatedness scales, including all subscales. The RSCA norms reported for mastery and relatedness for the standardization sample were a mean of 50.00 (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.00). In this study, student scores were comparable to the RSCA norms for mastery (<emph>M</emph> = 45.55, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.11) and relatedness (<emph>M</emph> = 43.38, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.37). As standard practice, raw data are not provided with published norms; therefore, a direct statistical comparison of groups is not possible. We relied on the norms to compare groups. These findings suggest that despite disabilities, the sample we studied reported resilience scores similar to the general population without sensory challenges. The participants reported strength overall, rather than vulnerability and weakness. Outliers whose low resilience scores fell outside this average were shared with the superintendent so that appropriate interventions could be considered. Table 3 includes students' overall scores on mastery and relatedness compared to RSCA norms. Table 4 presents the published RSCA population norm (<emph>M</emph> = 10.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.00) along the top row and students' scores on the subscales of mastery and relatedness compared to the RSCA are along the rows below.</p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive statistics for t scores of student totals compared to RSCA norms.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Population norms&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;50.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Mastery total&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;45.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;10.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Relatedness total&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;43.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;10.37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Descriptive statistics for scaled scores of subtests compared to RSCA norms.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;RSCA population norms&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;10.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Current sample data (DHH/BLV)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Mastery optimism&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8.82&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;2.99&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Mastery self-efficacy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8.86&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;3.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Mastery adaptability&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;9.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;2.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Relatedness trust&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;3.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Relatedness support&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;7.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;3.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Relatedness comfort&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8.65&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;3.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8195;Relatedness tolerance&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8.18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;2.98&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Data were coded and entered into SPSS version 14.0 for analysis. As predicted, Pearson's correlation analysis revealed that the school-specific survey and the RSCA were significantly correlated (<emph>r</emph> =.78, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01) on overall scores for both assessments thus confirming the school-specific survey was a reasonable analog to the RSCA for school-specific information. Furthermore, the total mastery subscale on the school-specific survey was significantly correlated to the RSCA mastery subscale, <emph>r</emph> =.709, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001. Likewise, the relatedness subscale on the school-specific survey was significantly correlated to the RSCA relatedness subscale, <emph>r</emph> =.675, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001. Given this concurrent validity, modeling the school-specific survey after the RSCA was a useful strategy that allowed students to focus on their school experience specifically. This allowed us to compare these different experiences.</p> <p>Students obtained scores indicative of high resilience overall on the school-specific survey (58.57% response rate). Parents (23.42%) and staff (43.68%) also provided their perspective on student resilience through the school-specific survey. Table 5 provides means and standard deviations for mastery, relatedness and total scores on the school-specific survey for each of these three groups.</p> <p>Table 5. School-specific survey: Students, staff and parents.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Mastery subscale&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Relatedness subscale&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Total&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Student&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;23.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;19.18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;44.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;(&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 41)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 4.77&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 5.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 13.61&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Staff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;23.86&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;25.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;48.39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;(&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 84)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 3.72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 4.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 7.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Parent&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;28.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;28.36&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 56.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;(&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 42)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 4.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 3.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;7.35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Total&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;24.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;24.48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 49.29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;(&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt; = 167)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 4.45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 5.65&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt; 10.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The means for students, parents, and staff were compared to see if there were any differences in their responses. Although some significant differences were reported among groups <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>, 161) = 16.77, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01, η<sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> =.172, all three groups rated resilience as high, thereby increasing the reliability of the student self-reports of resilience. A partial eta-squared test revealed the effect size to be moderate (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]; Miles &amp; Shevlin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>]). Significant differences were observed between staff and parents (<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001) and between students and parents (<emph>p</emph> &lt;.01) on the school-specific survey, but not between students and staff (<emph>p</emph> =.07). A Tukey-HSD post hoc test confirmed that both parents and staff reported significantly higher resilience scores than students. Although unmatched, the school-specific scores across groups were reasonably comparable to the RSCA.</p> <p>In order to examine relationships between resilience and academic success, Pearson correlations were computed between students' GPA scores and the RSCA total raw score, <emph>r</emph> =.47, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01. Correlations were also significant for GPA with mastery total scores, <emph>r</emph> =.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, and GPA with relatedness total scores, <emph>r</emph> =.41, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01. Additionally, there was a significant correlation between GPA and the school-specific survey total raw score, <emph>r</emph> =.32, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05. This positive relationship suggests that resilience data are relevant to academic achievement or success. To explore the relationship between the frequency of parents or siblings with sensory challenges and students' RSCA scores, we conducted a nonparametric Spearman's rho as the data were forged into ordinal levels (i.e., 1 = one or both parents or siblings were DHH or BLV, 2 = one or both parents or siblings were partially DHH or BLV, 3 = parents or siblings were not DHH or BLV). There was a significant, positive correlation between whether students had a parent or sibling who shared their sensory challenge and the RSCA (total raw score; parent Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.45, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01; sibling Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.47, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01) and between this family factor and the school-specific survey (total raw score; parent Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.47, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01; sibling Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.33, <emph>p</emph> =.03). Also, student engagement (where total number of sports played plus any additional extracurricular activities was calculated as interval data) was significantly and positively correlated with the RSCA (mastery Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.41, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01; relatedness Spearman <emph>r</emph> =.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt;. 01). The previous conclusions confirmed our predictions. Other variables, such as if a parent uses ASL, gender, age, duration at the school, grade, residential or day student, and proximity to home, did not correlate with the RSCA or the school-specific survey.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-12">Identifying factors within educational practice that impact resilience</hd> <p>The school-specific survey included two open-ended questions (not mutually exclusive) to identify factors within educational practice that might impact resilience. Students, parents and staff were asked: (a) "Does the school contribute to your/student success? If so, in what way?" and (b) "Does the school interfere with your/student success? If so, in what way?" Applying principles of grounded theory, two individuals who were trained in qualitative analysis independently rated responses and identified prominent themes. After the initial review, they examined the initial coded themes again to determine whether categories should be added or collapsed. Responses were coded based on the theme or themes present in the response and each item applied to only one category, and response frequencies were calculated. Frequencies (number responses for theme or total number of respondents) were converted to percentages and the top five answers were reported. Responses that were not in the top five were recorded (i.e., responses reported three or fewer times) as other. Nonresponses were common and noted (see Bernard &amp; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>All participants responded to both questions (i.e., participants did not choose between whether the school contributes OR interferes with success). The second question was more aptly translated as, "How might the school improve its practices?" Frequencies and proportions were calculated for themes listed per group and then the groups' responses were compared. The student response rate was 58.57%, the staff response rate was 36.31%, and the parent response rate was 20.00%. These rates indicate that the student responses are a fair representation of high school students at the school. The parent data may not generalize to other parents at the school, and staff data fall somewhere in between these two groups.</p> <p>Students, parents, and staff each reported between 75.60% and 80.00% agreement that the school contributes to student success. Both parents and staff agreed that learning activities, individualized instruction, instruction on independent living and excellent/caring staff were their top reasons for how the school contributes to student success. Students view how the school contributes to their success differently from parents and staff. They reported that teachers help them, the school helps them solve problems, the school provides support, their grades improved at the school, and they have friends that are like them as their top reasons. Despite some variation in responding overall, students, staff, and parents agreed that the top reason for how the school contributes to success was excellent staff or teachers. The top reasons cited for how the school contributes to success reflect themes of both mastery (e.g., learning activities, instruction on independent living, problem solving, grades) and relatedness (e.g., teachers help, school support, friends). The following examples present some of the themes that emerged in the qualitative analysis.</p> <p>Quotes from individual student responses follow which represent the frequently occurring theme of teachers help.</p> <p>Yes-It does. They constantly support me, encourage me, and provide me with numerous opportunities to experience different things.</p> <p>Yes-They give me a comfortable place to grow.</p> <p>Quotes from individual staff responses follow, which represent the frequently occurring theme of excellent staff.</p> <p>Yes-They (teach through) excellence, empowerment, encouragement.</p> <p>Yes-We (provide a) good quality of education, teachers and staff; we contribute a lot to student success.</p> <p>Quotes from individual parent responses follow which represent the frequently occurring theme of caring staff.</p> <p>Yes-They look out for their best interest ALL the time.</p> <p>Yes-They have greatly boosted my child's self-confidence by giving him the tools, opportunities, and independence he needed.</p> <p>When asked if the school interferes with student success, of the parents who responded (20.00% response rate), 65.70% of individuals stated that it does not interfere. However, of the students (58.57% response rate) and staff (36.31% response rate) who responded, 29.00% noted areas for improvement. There was some agreement between parents and staff that low expectations interfered with student success, while some students and parents reported that more course options, particularly in the foreign languages, would better support students and help them prepare for college. Staff reported additional recommendations for improvement, most of which centered on the need to challenge students more. These responses reflect mastery components of resilience rather than relatedness components given their focus on increasing academic challenge and opportunities to exercise competency.</p> <p>The quantitative and qualitative data were cross-compared to verify conclusions from each data set (see Teddlie &amp; Tashakkori, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref93">35</reflink>]). The data sets were in agreement, and the components of resilience (mastery and relatedness) can be found in both sets of data as noted previously.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-13">Discussion</hd> <p>Although testing accommodations for mandatory, standardized academic assessments are widely available for students with disabilities, interpretation remains challenging (American Psychological Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>]; Sireci et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]). Although well intentioned, these tests may inadvertently perpetuate negative stereotypes of individuals who are disabled. The objectives of the present study were (a) to determine if resilience data could help interpret academic success for students who are DHH or BLV and (b) to understand the nature of resilience in students who are DHH or BLV to better evaluate its relevance and appropriateness for this purpose.</p> <p>This is the first research study to use a published measure of resilience to assess students who are DHH or BLV. Students responded within one standard deviation of those without sensory deficits. This study defies stereotypes about the strength and capability of individuals with sensory deficits and affirms that individuals who are DHH or BLV have more in common with the seeing and hearing world than is often recognized. This means the students' resilience scores fell within the same 68% of the general population's scores on the RSCA. Furthermore, as expected, students' resilience scores positively correlated with academic achievement or success as they do in the general population. Thus, on average, students who are DHH or BLV are as resilient as the general population, and resilience is positively correlated with academic achievement or success. Additional data from students, parents and staff on the school-specific survey and the open-ended questions regarding whether the school contributes to success, implicate resilience as a relevant construct that has an important relationship to academic success. In addition, the qualitative data help to explain the participants' reasoning behind different school-specific resilience ratings. For example, students responded to the closed items of the school-specific survey for mastery and relatedness combined (<emph>M</emph> = 44.30; <emph>SD</emph> = 13.61) and reported resilience lower than staff or parents. When asked another question, "Does the school contribute to student success?" 75.60% of students' reported yes. Without the open-ended responses, it is only possible to speculate about the reasons for the objective responses. The open-ended responses verify that the closed responses were grounded in components of both mastery and relatedness and provide a deeper understanding of the real-world factors that contribute to resilience. According to students, the support that teachers provide is the number one reason that their school helps them succeed. The positive role that teachers play incorporates both elements of mastery and relatedness. Given the RSCA is positively correlated with the school-specific survey, it would follow that the open-ended responses also may help explain the closed responses on the RSCA. These data confirm that resilience is a relevant construct that may help interpretation of academic success in this setting. This suggests that resilience data may provide additional context for academic performance on standardized achievement tests. For example, if a student performs below standards on the academic assessment, resilience data may help explain why this is so, although caution is warranted due to the correlational design. Resilience data may also indicate potential interventions to improve academic success.</p> <p>In order to compare resilience in school to other settings, we designed a school-specific version of the RSCA. Given that both measures were significantly correlated and the school-specific version approximated reported psychometrics for the RSCA, we can conclude that students reported similar resilience in school as in other settings, offering support for a general construct of resilience. GPA score and having an immediate family member that shared his or her sensory challenge each were independently correlated with resilience. Regarding the significant, positive correlations found among GPA score and measures of resilience, having mastery over academics may build the confidence and efficacy that can influence relationships with others. It is also likely that strong relationships and other components of resilience build the confidence and support needed to succeed in academics. Being challenged in academics may also have a negative influence on resilience. Mastery and relatedness were each significantly and positively correlated with resilience, which suggests they each play a critical role in academic success. Given that all three participant groups cite excellent or caring staff as a primary reason for how the school supports student success, it is possible to imagine how pivotal the teacher-student relationship (relatedness) is in fostering academic success (mastery). Having a family member that shares an experience may relate to the construct of relatedness, particularly the aspects of trust and perceived access to support. Because the parent may be role-modeling his or her own success, the child who identifies with that parent can imagine that he or she too can overcome the challenge.</p> <p>Students who were more involved in the school scored higher on resilience measures. This validates the school's emphasis on the importance of student involvement. It is conceivable that through mastery of a given activity (e.g., academics, sports, extracurricular activities) and through supportive relationships (i.e., relatedness) with teachers, coaches and peers, students can experience greater success. The results do support the centrality of mastery and relatedness in understanding resilience, features that are the core of the RSCA. Student involvement, in particular, is an area where the school can intentionally impact resilience. The school provides multiple opportunities for student involvement (e.g., sports, extracurricular activities) that are significantly related to student success as measured by resilience instruments and GPA score.</p> <p>We were also interested in identifying additional environmental factors at the school or within the family that might be contributing to resilience in this population. This would help affirm resilience as a relevant and appropriate construct to further explore. We examined student, parent and staff open-ended responses regarding whether the school contributes to or interferes with student success and how it does this. All three groups reported that the school contributes to student success (77.46%) and when asked how it does this, some reasons were more frequently cited than others. Parents and staff reported that learning activities, individualized instruction, promotion of self-esteem, teaching of independent living, and excellent or caring staff make the difference. Students differed in their reasons for how the school supports them. Reasons included teachers help, the school helps solve problems, the school supports them, grades improved, and they have friends like them. Even though the student list differs from the parent or staff lists, their reasons reflect the constructs of mastery and relatedness. It would seem that one of the school's strengths is in understanding how best to foster mastery (especially the aspects of self-efficacy, adaptability, optimism) and relatedness (especially the aspects of trust and perceived access to support) in its students. In addition to reporting reasons for success, a minority of participants (23.06%) from all three groups also offered suggestions for improvement (interferes with), which mostly centered on lack of challenge. Further, the student response rate on the school-specific survey indicates that the student sample data can be generalized to high school students at the school. Lower response rates indicate the representativeness of parent and staff views is less certain.</p> <p>This study has several limitations, which include the following. First, RSCA scores were compared to standardized adolescent norms and not norms for individuals who are DHH or BLV. There are no norms available for this purpose, but given we were interested in seeing how these students compared to the general population, using these norms made sense. Second, even though we provided accommodations to students who are DHH or BLV, there still may have been problems in comprehension of the questions. In fact, when students who are DHH were asked to read English questions and write their responses, it was clear that they were translating English into ASL and then responding (e.g., the word order was ASL word order rather than English). Although interpreters were available as needed, students still may have misunderstood some of the open-ended questions. Third, given that scribes were used for students who were BLV (6 of 11 students) and that staff were proctoring and collecting identified responses, they may have responded in ways to appear more favorable, although the counselor believed the students were responding honestly. Fourth, student sample size was small, particularly from students who are BLV, and there was a relatively low parent response rate. These issues should be considered when interpreting the data. It is important to remember that the primary goal of this descriptive study was to explore alternative assessments to standardized achievement testing, not to generalize the findings to the general population. Fifth, due to its design, this study does not provide causal explanations for resilience. Sixth, this was the first-time the RSCA was used with this population; further study is needed to confirm accuracy of RSCA data and correlations. Seventh, we did not directly compare resilience data to standardized testing data. It would help to directly compare these data sets to see how well one predicts the other (see Finn et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>] and West et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref97">41</reflink>]). Eighth, the multirater data was not matched to individual students, so although parents and staff rated resilience as high, it should be interpreted carefully. Last, the school-specific measure was not a published measure of resilience and except for comparing it to the RSCA, a normative comparison was not possible and psychometric data was unavailable.</p> <p>These results confirm resilience as a relevant construct to examine in this population as it relates to academic success, but greater control is needed to better understand this complex relationship. Currently, we are collecting longitudinal resilience data at the school, which will be correlated with educational practices and other demographics to better evaluate their impact on resilience and to more meaningfully consider how this information could aid interpretation of standardized tests.</p> <p>This study clearly supports the ordinariness of resilience described in the literature, how it is the rule, not the exception, and although there may be certain temperaments, personality traits, and information processing abilities that one is born with that may serve to protect against adversity, the majority of protective factors are now thought to be environmental in nature and therefore malleable (Masten &amp; Obradovic, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]). Individuals who are DHH or BLV are not excluded from the ordinariness that has been documented in the literature. In addition, the results defy stereotypes of individuals with disabilities that persist in our culture. Rather, they support the strength and resilience of a specific group of individuals with disabilities, those individuals who are DHH or BLV.</p> <p>Future researchers should continue to explore alternative assessment strategies for individuals with disabilities and continue to build the knowledge base regarding the experiences of those who do not fit neatly into existing structures and practices. The literature would additionally benefit from more well-controlled, mixed-methods studies to systematically evaluate the role of resilience in under-represented groups (Theron, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref99">36</reflink>]). Based on these findings, it seems reasonable to tentatively conclude that resilience data may offer insight into academic achievement and success, although more research is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-14">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Superintendent Carol Hilty, Aaron Rosenthal, Kathy Emter, Ellen Trapp, and the team at the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind for their commitment to this project. Casey Schindling and Katherine Dials were undergraduates at the same the research was completed. They have since graduated.</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-15">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0128295170-16">School-specific survey—Student version (specific document would be tailored to blindness or d...</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0128295170-17">Mastery</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. At (insert specific school), there are opportunities to participate in sports, band performances, and student body government.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 2. At ____, I feel confident that I can learn.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 3. At ____, in the classroom, I can ask for help.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 4. At ____, I feel good about myself.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 5. At ____, I am proud of who I am.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 6. At ____, I feel empowered/able to make decisions.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 7. At ____, I know what is happening.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 8. At ____, I can do things on my own.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <hd id="AN0128295170-18">Relatedness</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. At (insert specific school), there are opportunities to share information with many people.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 2. At ____, there are opportunities to meet people like myself.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 3. At ____, there are opportunities to interact with adults who are blind/low vision or deaf/hard of hearing.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 4. At ____, I look up to adults like me who are blind/low vision or deaf/hard of hearing.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 5. At ____, there are people who can help me solve a problem.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 6. At ____, I understand others.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 7. At ____, I feel connected and that I belong.</item> <item> 1 2 3 4</item> </ulist> <p>Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 8. Does (insert specific school) contribute to your success? If so, in what way? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</item> <p></p> <item> 9. Does (insert specific school) interfere with your success? If so, in what way?</item> </ulist> <p>________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 10. Do you participate in any sports at (insert specific school)? If so, which one(s)? _____________________________</item> <p></p> <item> 11. Do you participate in any extracurricular activities (student government, clubs) at (insert specific school)? If so, which one (s)?</item> </ulist> <p>________________________________________________________________________</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 12. Have you ever attended schools other than (insert specific school)? If so, please list here.</item> </ulist> <p>___________________________________________________________________________________</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 13. Do you have a parent who is blind/low vision? Yes No</item> <p></p> <item> 14. Do you have a parent who is deaf/hard of hearing? Yes No</item> <p></p> <item> 15. Do you have a sibling who is blind/low vision? Yes No</item> <p></p> <item> 16. Do you have a sibling who is deaf/hard of hearing? Yes No</item> <p></p> <item> 17. Do you have a parent who knows sign language well? Yes No</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0128295170-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref35" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahlert, I. A., &amp; Greeff, A. P. (2012). Resilience factors associated with adaptation in families with deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 157, 391–404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for assessment of and intervention with persons with disabilities. American Psychologist, 67, 43–62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref12" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asch, A., Rousso, H., &amp; Jeffries, T. (2001). Beyond pedestals: The lives of girls and women with disabilities. In H. Rousso (Ed.), Double jeopardy: Addressing gender equity in special education supports and services (pp. 13–41). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref72" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bernard, H. R., &amp; Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berry, J. W., Elliott, T. R., &amp; Rivera, P. (2007). Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality prototypes among persons with spinal cord injury. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 292–302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Binet, A., &amp; Simon, T. (1905). Upon the necessity of establishing a scientific diagnosis of inferior states of intelligence. L'Annee Psychologique, 11, 163–191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, M. A., Scharff, L. H., &amp; Packard, G. A. (2012). Teaching and assessing respect for human dignity with case studies, lab demonstrations and field trips. Presented to the American Psychological Association Conference, Orlando, FL, August.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cambra, C. (1996). A comparative study of personality descriptors attributed to the deaf, blind and individuals with no sensory disability. American Annals of the Deaf, 14, 24–28. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.11353/aad.2012.0007">http://dx.doi.org/10.11353/aad.2012.0007</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref36" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Charlson, E. S., Bird, R. L., &amp; Strong, M. (1999). Resilience and success among deaf high school students: Three case studies. American Annals of the Deaf, 144, 226–235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dahlbeck, D. T., &amp; Lightsey, O. R. (2008). Generalized self-efficacy, coping and self-esteem as predictors of psychological adjustment among children with disabilities or chronic illnesses. Children's Health Care, 37, 293–315. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02739610802437509">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02739610802437509</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Klerk, H., &amp; Greeff, A. P. (2011). Resilience in parents of young adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment &amp; Blindness, 105, 414–424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Villiers, M., &amp; van den Berg, H. (2012). The implementation and evaluation of a resiliency programme for children. South African Journal of Psychology, 42, 93–102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn, A. S., Kraft, M. A., West, M. R., Leonard, J. A., Bish, C. E., Martin, R. E., ... Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2014). Cognitive skills, student achievement, and schools. Psychological Science, 25, 736–744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geisinger, K. F. (2000). Psychological testing at the end of the millennium: A brief historical review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 117–118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilligan, R. (2000). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school and spare time experiences. Children and Society, 14, 27–47. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111.chso.2000.14.issue-1/issuetoc">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111.chso.2000.14.issue-1/issuetoc</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hudson, W. E. (2007). The relationship between academic self-efficacy and resilience to grades of students admitted under special criteria. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 3674. http://diginole.lib.fsu.etd/3674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jessup, G. M., Cornell, E., &amp; Bundy, A. C. (2010). The treasure in leisure activities: Fostering resilience in young people who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment &amp; Blindness, July, 419–430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, V. L., Collins, S., &amp; Langdon, P. E. (2009). The causal attributions of teaching staff towards children with intellectual disabilities: A comparison of 'vignettes' depicting challenging behavior with 'real' incidents of challenging behavior. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22, 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 493–506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S., &amp; Obradovic, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.003">http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.003</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles J., &amp; Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London, UK: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2010). Cultural stereotypes of disabled and non-disabled men and women: Consensus for global category representations in diagnostic domains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 471–488. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466609X468411">http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466609X468411</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nester, M. (1993). Psychometric testing and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, 75–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettigrew, T. F., &amp; Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollard, C., &amp; Kennedy, P. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of emotional impact, coping strategies and post-traumatic growth following spinal cord injury: A ten year review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 347–362. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910707X197046">http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910707X197046</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince-Embury, S. (2007). Resiliency scales for children and adolescents: A Profile of personal strengths manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince-Embury, S. (2008). Translating resiliency theory for assessment and application in schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 4–10. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573508316560">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573508316560</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince-Embury, S. (2009). The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents as related to parent education level and race/ethnicity in children. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 167–182. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573509335475">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573509335475</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince-Embury, S. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents and use for youth with psychiatric disorders. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 291–302. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282910366832">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282910366832</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince-Embury, S., &amp; Steer, R. A. (2010). Profiles of personal resiliency for normative and clinical samples of youth assessed by the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 303–314. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282910366833">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282910366833</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahmati, Z. (2015). The study of academic burnout in students with high and low level of self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 49–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, S., Muir, K., &amp; Raimonde Evenson, C. (2003). Signs of resilience: Assets that support deaf adults' success in bridging the deaf and hearing worlds. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 222–232.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., &amp; Shuhong, L. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, Winter, 75, 457–490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teddlie, C., &amp; Tashakkori, A. (2008). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative, qualitative applications in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 3–19). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theron, L. C. (2012). Resilience research with South African youth: Caveats and complexities. South African Journal of Psychology, 42, 333–345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theron, L. C. (2013). Teacher pathways to resilience: Interpretations of teacher adjustment to HIV/AIDS-Related challenges. In M. Wissing (Ed.), Cross-cultural advancements in positive psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theron, L. C., &amp; Donald, D. R. (2012). Educational psychology and resilience in developing contexts: A rejoinder to Toland and Carrigan (2011). School Psychology International, 34, 51–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, L. G. (2008). Toward the mastery of resiliency. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 127–137. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573508316600">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573508316600</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, J. (1991). The social and policy context of the act. In West, J. (Ed.), The American with Disabilities Act: From policy to practice. New York, NY: Milbank Memorial Fund.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, M. R., Kraft, M. A., Finn, A. S., Martin, R., Duckworth, A. L., Gabrieli, C. F. O., &amp; Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2014, September 12). Promise and paradox: Measuring students' non-cognitive skills and the impact of schooling. Paper presented at the CESifo Area Conference on Economics of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, B., Driver, S., &amp; Warren, A. (2010). Resilience and indicators of adjustment during rehabilitation from a spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 55, 23–32. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018451">http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018451</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michelle A. Butler; Andrew D. Katayama; Casey Schindling and Katherine Dials</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref97"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1172981 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Assessing Resilience in Students Who Are Deaf or Blind: Supplementing Standardized Achievement Testing – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Michelle+A%2E%22">Butler, Michelle A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katayama%2C+Andrew+D%2E%22">Katayama, Andrew D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schindling%2C+Casey%22">Schindling, Casey</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dials%2C+Katherine%22">Dials, Katherine</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2018 111(3):352-362. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 11 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blindness%22">Blindness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Tests%22">Achievement Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Impairments%22">Visual Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hearing+Impairments%22">Hearing Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+Point+Average%22">Grade Point Average</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hypothesis+Testing%22">Hypothesis Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Schools%22">Special Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Surveys%22">Teacher Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Surveys%22">Parent Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Testing+Accommodations%22">Testing Accommodations</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/00220671.2016.1264052 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0022-0671 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Although testing accommodations for standardized assessments are available for students with disabilities, interpretation remains challenging. The authors explored resilience to see if it could contribute to the interpretation of academic success for students who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision. High school students (30 deaf, 11 blind) responded to the Resiliency Scales and a school-specific resilience survey. Student ratings were within 1 SD of those who were not deaf or blind; resilience was positively correlated with academic success (grade point average). Resilience information may contribute to the interpretation of academic success in students who are deaf or blind and may provide insight into potential interventions. This is the first time students who are deaf or blind have been assessed on a published measure of resilience. Results defy stereotypes and affirm that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision have more in common with the hearing and seeing world than is often recognized. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 42 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1172981 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1172981 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/00220671.2016.1264052 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 352 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Deafness Type: general – SubjectFull: Blindness Type: general – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Achievement Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Visual Impairments Type: general – SubjectFull: Hearing Impairments Type: general – SubjectFull: High School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Correlation Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade Point Average Type: general – SubjectFull: Hypothesis Testing Type: general – SubjectFull: Special Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Surveys Type: general – SubjectFull: Parent Surveys Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Surveys Type: general – SubjectFull: Testing Accommodations Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Assessing Resilience in Students Who Are Deaf or Blind: Supplementing Standardized Achievement Testing Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Butler, Michelle A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Katayama, Andrew D. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Schindling, Casey – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dials, Katherine IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0022-0671 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 111 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
