When it comes to testing, the hope is that no examinee will have to say: “It’s all Greek to me,” or, in this case, French, according to Michael Ehringhaus and Neal Kingston. The co-authors of a chapter in Assessing Deaf Adults: Critical Issues in Testing and Evaluation start with a short paragraph in French, to make the point that for many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, the experience of testing in written English can present difficulties similar to those faced by would-be French scholars testing in a language that is not their first. 

Assessing Deaf Adults, edited by Judith L. Mounty and David S. Martin, is a “response to the tidal wave of high-stakes testing that has come to dominate educational policy.” The book contains content from educational researchers, test developers, and legal experts. The text provides an overview of current and past concerns in the testing of deaf individuals; discusses test development, legal, and administrative issues; analyzes case studies from specific professions and exams; and makes recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders. 

Ehringhaus and Kingston collaborated on the chapter, “Use of Technology and Principles of Universal Design to Improve the Validity and Fairness of Licensure Tests,” citing research that shows that, although deaf students’ grade-point averages are similar to those of hearing students, their tests scores tend to be significantly lower. For many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, “English does not function as a true first/primary language.” Consequently, Ehringhaus and Kingston suggest that it is fair to use the analogy of taking a test in a second language to understand the impact of testing in written English for deaf and hard-of-hearing adults. 

For licensure tests to be both reliable and valid, they should not contain language that “poses difficulties that are unrelated or not closely related to the knowledge, skills, and abilities identified in the test blueprint,” according to the authors. They present several versions of a question to show that verbose or arcane language in test items can be confusing or time-consuming for test-takers who are non-native English speakers, dyslexic, deaf, or hard of hearing. These questions often test English language ability rather than the skills they are intended to assess. 

According to Ehringhaus and Kingston, test questions should follow the principles of universal design; they should be accessible to all participants. For questions to be fair and valid, they should be written in language that is not idiomatic, difficult to understand, or grammatically complicated. The authors provide suggestions of testing accommodations, intended to “level the playing field,” to meet the needs of examinees who are deaf or hard of hearing. These include: audio with controllable volume, on-demand video presentation of instructions and/or items using sign language, on-demand simplification and contextualization of English, and instant messaging to communicate with proctors. 

They conclude with a call for further research to guide the development of applying the principles of universal design to testing for blind or hard-of-hearing persons. The improvement of accommodations will not only be fair to deaf and hard-of-hearing examinees; it also has the potential to increase the validity and reliability of test scores overall. 

“The underlying issue here,” Ehringhaus says, “is not about making assessments easier for a particular population of people. It’s about ensuring that assessments measure what they are supposed to measure . . . not proximity to a particular rarefied form of the English language used in many assessments.” 

---

Neal Kingston is an expert in the areas of assessment and standards with more than 30 years of experience in education. He earned bachelor’s degrees from the State University of New York and master’s and doctorate degrees from the Teachers College at Columbia University. 

Michael Ehringhaus has more than 30 years of experience in the fields of education, assessment, professional development, and school improvement. He is the director of professional development services at Measured Progress, where he oversees all aspects of professional development, including development of programs and services, supervision of staff, and assessment of need for states and districts. He earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of North Carolina, a doctorate degree from Syracuse University, and a certificate of advanced studies from Harvard University.