Classroom environments were analyzed to better understand adult language modeling rates and whether teacher certification practices contributed to differences with learners with deafblindness (DB). Student characteristics were also examined in relation to communication rates. When there is a dual sensory loss, access to tactile and visual communication forms (i.e., multimodal) in addition to verbal communication is needed. Data were collected from 15 teacher–student dyads from four states through behavioral coding of videotaped language samples, teacher surveys, and the Communication Matrix assessment. Overall, teachers used verbal communication significantly more than additional classroom staff. Teachers in a state that required a severe/profound certification had significantly higher rates of overall communication and visual communication, and they had students with higher communication levels.
AlsopL.BlahaR.KloosE. (2000). The intervener in early intervention and educational settings for children and youth with deafblindness. National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Young Adults who are Deaf-Blind, Teaching Research, Western Oregon University.
2.
BruceS. M. (2003). The importance of shared communication forms. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 20, 106–109.
3.
BruceS. M.BashinskiS. M. (2017). The trifocus framework and interprofessional collaborative practice in severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 162–180. http://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0063
4.
BruceS. M.BordersC. (2015). Communication and language in learners who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities: Theories, research, and practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 368–384. http://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2015.0035
5.
BruceS. M.NelsonC.PerezA.StutzmanB.BarnhillB. A. (2016). The state of research on communication and literacy in deafblindness. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 424–443. http://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2016.0035
6.
BruceS. M.VargasC. (2007). Intentional communication acts expressed by children with severe disabilities in high-rate contexts. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 300–311. http://doi.org/10.1080/07434610601179960
7.
CascellaP. W.BruceS. M.TriefE. (2015). Research report: Sign language, speech, and communication repair abilities by children with congenital deafblindness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109, 141–146.
8.
DammeyerJ. (2014). Symptoms of autism among children with congenital deafblindness. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 1095–1102. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1967-8
9.
DammeyerJ.Ask LarsenF. (2016). Communication and language profiles of children with congenital deafblindness. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 34(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619616651301
10.
GuthrieD. M.PitmanR.StoleeP.StrongG.PossJ.TjamE. Y.BrownL.AshworthM.HirdesJ. P. (2011). Reliability of standardized assessment for adults who are deafblind. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 48(5), 545–554.
11.
HallgrenK. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34.
12.
The Helen Keller National Center Act of 1984, as amended by P.L. 99-506; 29 U.S.C. 1901 §et seq. (2011).
13.
HolteL.PrickettJ. G.DykeD. C.Van OlsonR. J.LubricaP.KnutsonC. L.KnutsonJ. F.BrennanS. (2006). Issues in the evaluation of infants and young children who are suspected of or who are deaf-blind. Infants & Young Children, 19(3), 213–227.
JanssenM. J.Riksen-WalravenJ. M.van DijkJ. P. M. (2002). Enhancing the quality of interaction between deafblind children and their educators. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14(1), 87–109. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013583312920
16.
LucknerJ. L.BruceS. M.FerrellK. A. (2016). A summary of the communication and literacy evidence-based practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, visually impaired, and deafblind. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 37(4), 225–241. http://doi.org/10.1177/1525740115597507
17.
LueckA. H.DuttonG. (2015). Vision and the brain: Understanding cerebral visual impairment in children. AFB Press, American Foundation for the Blind.
18.
NelsonC.BruceS. M. (2016). Critical issues in the lives of children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 406–411.
19.
NelsonC.van DijkJ.McDonnellA. P.ThompsonK. (2002). A framework for understanding young children with severe multiple disabilities: The van Dijk approach to assessment. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 27(2), 97–111.
20.
NelsonC.van DijkJ.OsterT.McDonnellA. P. (2009). Child-guided Strategies: The Van Dijk approach to assessment: For understanding children and youth with sensory impairments and multiple disabilities. American Printing House for the Blind, Incorporated.
21.
ParkerA. (2016). National Intervener Certification Eportfolio (NICE): Participatory efforts to recognize the intervener practice. https://works.bepress.com/amy-t-parker/23/
22.
PreislerG. (2005). Development of communication in deafblind children. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 7(1), 41–62.
23.
PreislerG. (2010). Development of communication in children with sensory functional disabilities. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development, 2, 87–109.
24.
Roman-LantzyC. (2007). Cortical visual impairment: An approach to assessment and intervention. American Foundation for the Blind.
25.
RowlandC. (1990). Communication in the classroom for children with dual sensory impairments: Studies of teacher and child behavior. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 262–274.
26.
RowlandC. (2011). Using the communication matrix to assess expressive skills in early communicators. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(3), 190–201. http://doi.org/10.1177/1525740110394651
27.
SchalockM. D. (2016). The 2015 National Child Count of Children and Youth who are Deaf-Blind. National Center on Deaf-Blindness, The Research Institute, Western Oregon University.
28.
SchweigertP. D. (2012). Understanding the importance of the partner in communication development for individuals with sensory and multiple disabilities. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(4), 167.
29.
Siegel-CauseyE.BashinskiS. M. (1997). Enhancing initial communication and responsiveness of learners with multiple disabilities: A tri-focus framework for partners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12(2), 105–120.
30.
SternD. N. (2000). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. Basic Books.
31.
TriefE.CascellaP. W.BruceS. M. (2013). A field study of a standardized tangible symbol system for learners who are visually impaired and have multiple disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107(3), 180–192.
32.
VervloedM. P. J.Van DijkR. J. M.KnoorsH.Van DijkJ. P. M. (2006). Interaction between the teacher and the congenitally deafblind child. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(3), 336–344. http://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2006.0040
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
