Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education, and Communication Disorders, College of Education and Human Development, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ear Hear. 2018 Mar/Apr;39(2):278-292. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000485.
Emerging evidence suggests that early phonological awareness in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children with functional hearing is significantly related to their reading acquisition, and the assessment of phonological awareness can play a critical role in preventing reading difficulties. Validation of the scores obtained from standardized assessments when used with DHH students is crucial to support the assessments' intended interpretations and implications of test scores. Using archival data sets, the aim of this study was twofold: (a) to establish the factorial validity of the item scores on the Test of Preschool Early Literacy-Phonological Awareness (TOPEL-PA) for DHH children with functional hearing and hearing children and (b) to test measurement invariance across these groups. Our archival data sets included assessments of DHH children, hearing children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, and hearing children from a range of SES backgrounds. We hypothesized that a second-order unifying ability, Phonological Awareness, along with four first-order subtest factors would explain inter-item associations among the 27 items on the TOPEL-PA. We further hypothesized that patterns of associations among the item scores would be similar across groups and that the individual items would function similarly across groups.
Seven hundred and thirty-three children from three samples participated in the study; 171 were DHH children (Mage = 58.7 months old, SDage = 12.5 months old), 195 were low-SES hearing children (Mage = 55.5 months old, SDage = 3.5 months old), and 367 were diverse-SES hearing children (Mage = 53.4 months old, SDage = 8.9 months old). All DHH children were able to identify the referent of monosyllabic spoken words on the Early Speech Perception Test.
Test of confirmatory item factor analyses of the hypothesized second-order factor structure revealed that a second-order unifying ability along with four first-order subtest factors well explained associations among the item scores for all groups. This aligned with the scoring structure of the TOPEL-PA, providing strong evidence for factorial validity of the item scores for DHH children as well as for hearing children groups. The measurement invariance test results provided evidence that the vast majority of TOPEL-PA items functioned similarly for hearing children and DHH children with speech perception abilities, suggesting that the utility of the assessment scores obtained from DHH children is consistent with the scores obtained from hearing children.
Results of our study suggest that researchers and practitioners can use the TOPEL-PA to assess DHH children with functional hearing. It also suggests that the two skills measured on the TOPEL-PA (blending and elision) are qualitatively similar for DHH and hearing children, but the latent mean score obtained from the DHH children significantly differed from those of the hearing groups, suggesting a quantitative difference.
新出现的证据表明,有功能性听力的聋儿和重听儿童(DHH)的早期语音意识与他们的阅读能力有显著的关系,语音意识的评估在预防阅读困难方面起着至关重要的作用。当用于 DHH 学生时,标准化评估中获得的分数的有效性对于支持评估的预期解释和测试分数的含义至关重要。本研究使用档案数据集,目的有两个:(a)为有功能性听力的 DHH 儿童和听力儿童建立测试学前早期读写能力-语音意识(TOPEL-PA)项目分数的因子有效性;(b)检验这些群体之间的测量不变性。我们的档案数据集包括对 DHH 儿童、来自低社会经济地位(SES)背景的听力儿童和来自各种 SES 背景的听力儿童的评估。我们假设,二阶统一能力,语音意识,以及四个一阶子测试因素将解释 27 个项目的项目间关联。我们还假设,项目分数之间的关联模式在各组之间相似,并且个体项目在各组之间的功能相似。
三个样本中有 733 名儿童参与了研究;171 名是 DHH 儿童(Mage=58.7 个月,SDage=12.5 个月),195 名是低 SES 听力儿童(Mage=55.5 个月,SDage=3.5 个月),367 名是 SES 多样的听力儿童(Mage=53.4 个月,SDage=8.9 个月)。所有 DHH 儿童都能够在早期言语感知测试中识别单音节口语词的参照词。
对假设的二阶因素结构的测试验证性项目因子分析表明,二阶统一能力和四个一阶子测试因素很好地解释了所有群体中项目分数之间的关联。这与 TOPEL-PA 的评分结构一致,为 DHH 儿童以及听力儿童群体的项目分数的因子有效性提供了强有力的证据。测量不变性检验结果为言语感知能力相似的听力儿童和 DHH 儿童的绝大多数 TOPEL-PA 项目功能相似提供了证据,这表明从 DHH 儿童获得的评估分数的效用与从听力儿童获得的分数一致。
我们的研究结果表明,研究人员和从业者可以使用 TOPEL-PA 来评估有功能性听力的 DHH 儿童。它还表明,TOPEL-PA 上测量的两项技能(混合和省略)对 DHH 和听力儿童是相似的,但从 DHH 儿童获得的潜在平均分数与听力组明显不同,这表明存在数量上的差异。