Hyde M B, Power D J
Faculty of Education, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Am Ann Deaf. 1996 Mar;141(1):5-10. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0027.
In this study, teachers' ratings of the speech intelligibility and receptive communication ability of 15 severely deaf and 15 profoundly deaf students using five methods of communication were compared with the students' scores on tests of these receptive communication methods. The teachers' ratings generally were lower than the test scores, and examination of the correspondence between ratings and test measures revealed a low level of association between the two. Only the correlation between ratings and test results for fingerspelling had an acceptable level of statistical significance. Teachers' ratings appeared to underestimate students' tested communicative abilities in all communication modes, a situation that could engender self-fulfilling prophecies of poor performance. It would therefore be useful to have relatively quick, reliable, valid procedures available for teachers to assess their students' communication competencies with the various manual and oral components of communication. Several such procedures are suggested.
在本研究中，将15名重度失聪学生和15名极重度失聪学生使用五种沟通方式时教师对其言语清晰度和接受性沟通能力的评分，与学生在这些接受性沟通方式测试中的得分进行了比较。教师的评分总体上低于测试分数，对评分与测试指标之间的对应关系进行检查后发现，二者之间的关联度较低。只有手指拼写的评分与测试结果之间的相关性具有可接受的统计显著性水平。在所有沟通模式中，教师的评分似乎都低估了学生的测试沟通能力，这种情况可能会导致自我应验的表现不佳预言。因此，拥有相对快速、可靠、有效的程序供教师评估学生在各种沟通的手动和口头组成部分方面的沟通能力将是有益的。本文提出了几种这样的程序。
