Despite the current need for reliable and valid test instruments in different countries in order to monitor the sign language acquisition of deaf children, very few tests are commercially available that offer strong evidence for their psychometric properties. This mirrors the current state of affairs for many sign languages, where very little research is available. No previous empirical study has focused explicitly on the linguistic, methodological, and theoretical issues involved in the process of adapting a test from a source sign language to a target sign language. Problems during the adaptation process can arise from linguistic differences between the source and the target language and differences in the source and the target cultures. Both are important aspects that need to be considered in the adaptation of a sign language test from a source to a target language. This study proposes a model for sign language test adaptation, based on the adaptation of the British Sign Language Receptive Skills Test to German Sign Language. The model includes different methodological steps, with a particular focus on construct validation.
AndersonD.ReillyJ. (1997). The puzzle of negation: How children move from communicative to grammatical negation in ASL. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 411–429.
2.
AndersonD.ReillyJ. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(2), 83–119.
3.
AudeoudM.HaugT. (2008). ‘Grundsätzlich wollen wir Tests, die alle sprachlichen Ebenen überprüfen!’ Eine Pilot-Studie zum Bedarf an Gebärdensprachtests für hörgeschädigte Kinder an Deutschschweizer Hörgeschädigtenschulen. Hörgeschädigtenpädagogik, 61(1), 15–20.
4.
BachmanL. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BeckerC. (2003). Verfahren der Lexikonerweiterung in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
7.
BellugiU.van HoekK.Lillo-MartinD.O’GradyL. (1988). The acquisition of syntax and space in young deaf signers. In Mogford-BevanK.BishopD. (Eds.), Language development in exceptional circumstances (pp. 132–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BernardinoE. (2005). The acquisition of classifiers in verbs of motion and verbs of location in Brazilian Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (ProQuest UMI number: 3186488).
9.
BriggsS. R.CheekJ. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 106–148.
10.
BühnerM. (2006). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Auflage). München, Germany: Pearson Studium.
11.
ChapelleC. A.DouglasD. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DanemanM.CaseR. (1981). Syntactic form, semantic complexity, and short-term memory: Influence on children’s acquisition of new linguistic structures. Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 367–378.
13.
DaviesA.BrownA.ElderC.HillK.LumleyT.McNamaraT. (1999). Dictionary of language testing – Studies in language testing 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DouglasD. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
De BeuzevilleL. (2006). Visual and linguistic representation in the acquisition of depicting verbs: A study of native signing deaf children of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Renwick College, University of Newcastle, Australia.
16.
FisseniH.-J. (2004). Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik – Mit Hinweisen zur Intervention (3. Auflage). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.
17.
FriendM.KeplingerM. (2008). Reliability and validity of the computerized comprehension task (CCT): Data from American English and Mexican Spanish infants. Journal of Child Language, 35, 77–98.
18.
GeisingerK. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312.
19.
GlückS. (2001). Morphosyntaktische Eigenschaften der Klassifikation in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. In LeuningerH.WempeK. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000 – Theorie und Anwendung (pp. 127–145). Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
20.
GlückS. (2005). Dimensionen – Klassifikation und Spezifizierung in Gebärdensprachen und Lautsprachen. In LeuningerH.HappD. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (pp. 179–200). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
21.
GlückS.PfauR. (1997a). Eine Klasse für sich: Klassifizierende Verben in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaften, 16(1/2), 181–208.
22.
GlückS.PfauR. (1997b). Einige Aspekte der Morphologie und Morphosyntax in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. Frankfurter Linguistische Forschung, 20, 30–48.
23.
GlückS.PfauR. (1998). On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In Cambier-LangeveldT.LiptákA.RedfordM. (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE VI (pp. 59–74). Leiden, The Netherlands: Sole.
24.
GüntherK. B. (1999). Bilingualer Unterricht mit gehörlosen Grundschülern – Zwischenbericht zum Hamburger Bilingualen Schulversuch. Hamburg, Germany: Verlag hörgeschädigter Kinder.
25.
GüntherK. B.SchäfkeI. (2004). Bilinguale Erziehung als Förderkonzept für gehörlose SchülerInnnen – Abschlußbericht zum Hamburger Bilingual Schulversuch. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
26.
HänelB. (2003). Der Erwerb der Deutschen Gebärdensprache als Erstsprache – Die frühkindliche Sprachentwicklung von Subjekt- und Objektverbkongruenz in DGS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hamburg University, Department of Linguistics.
27.
HänelB. (2005). The acquisition of agreement in DGS: Early steps into spatially expressed syntax. In LeuningerH.HappD. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (pp. 201–232). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
28.
HambletonR. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229–244.
29.
HambletonR. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164–172.
30.
HambletonR. K. (2005). Issues, design, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
HambletonR. K.PatsulaL. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153–171.
32.
HappD. (2005). Manuelle und nicht manuelle Module der Deutschen Gebärdensprache (DGS): Linguistische. In LeuningerH.HappD. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (pp. 9–28). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
33.
HappD.VorköperM.-O. (2005). Einige Bemerkungen zur syntaktischen und morphologischen Repräsentation von Numerus in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. In LeuningerH.HappD. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (pp. 87–110). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
34.
HaugT. (2008). Review of sign language assessment instruments. In BakerA.WollB. (Eds.), Sign language acquisition (pp. 51–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
HaugT. (2011). Adaptation and evaluation of a German Sign Language Test – A computer-based receptive skills test for deaf children ages 4–8 years old. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg University Press. [Free download at: http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/purl/HamburgUP_Haug_Adaptation].
36.
HaugT.HintermairM. (2003). Ermittlung des Bedarfs von Gebärdensprachtests für gehörlose Kinder – Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie. Das Zeichen, 64, 220–229.
37.
HaugT.MannW. (2008). Adapting tests of sign language assessment to other sign languages – A review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 138–147.
38.
HermanR. (1998). The need for an assessment of deaf children’s signing skills. Deafness and Education: Journal of the British Association of the Teachers of the Deaf, 22(3), 3–8.
39.
HermanR. (2002). Assessment of BSL development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University London.
40.
HermanR.HolmesS.WollB. (1998). Design and standardisation of an assessment of British Sign Language development for use with young deaf children: Final report, 1998. Unpublished manuscript, City University London.
HermanR.HolmesS.WollB. (2008). Adapting the BSL Receptive Skills Test. Unpublished manuscript, City University London.
43.
HermanR.GroveN.HolmesS.MorganG.SutherlandH.WollB. (2004). Assessing BSL development: Production test (narrative skills). London: City University Publication.
44.
HermansD.KnoorsH.VerhoevenL. (2010). Assessment of sign language development: The case of deaf children in the Netherlands. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(2), 107–119.
45.
HoffmeisterR. (1992). Mapping number and arrangement in the language of deaf children: Plurals and many things. Unpublished manuscript, Center for the Study of Communication & the Deaf, Boston University.
46.
HuaZ. (2009). The role of phonological saliency and phonological template in typically and atypically developing phonology: Evidence from Putonghua-speaking children. In LawS.-P.WeekesB.WongA. (Eds.), Language disorders in speakers of Chinese (pp. 19–32). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
47.
JohnstonT. (2004). The assessment and achievement of proficiency in a native sign language within a sign bilingual program: The pilot Auslan receptive skills test. Deafness and Education International, 6(2), 57–81.
48.
KrausnekerV. (2004). Viele Blumen schreibt man ‘Blümer’ – Soziolinguistische Aspekte des bilingualen Wiener Grundschul-Modells mit Österrreichischer Gebärdensprache und Deutsch. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
49.
LewisW. (1995). Bilingual teaching of deaf children in Denmark – Description of a project 1982–1992. Aalborg, Denmark: Døveskolernes Materialcenter.
50.
LienertG.RaatzU. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Auflage). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
51.
MahshieS. N. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually – With insights and applications from Sweden and Denmark. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
52.
MannW.PrinzP. (2006). The perception of sign language assessment by professionals in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(3), 356–370.
53.
MarscharkM. (2002). Foundations of communication and the emergence of language in deaf children. In MorganG.WollB. (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition – Trends in language acquisition research (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
54.
MartinA. J.SeraM. D. (2006). The acquisition of spatial constructions in American Sign Language and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(4), 391–402.
55.
MayberryR. I.LockE.KazmiH. (2002). Development: Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38.
56.
McKayP. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
MeierR. P. (1987). Elicited imitation of verb agreement in American Sign Language: Iconically or morphologically determined?Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 362–376.
58.
MeierR. P. (2002). The acquisition of verb agreement – Pointing out arguments for the linguistic status of agreement in signed languages. In MorganG.WollB. (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 115–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
59.
MitchellR.KarchmerM. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies4(2), 138–163.
60.
MorganG.BarrièreI.WollB. (2003). First verbs in British Sign Language development. Working Papers in Language and Communication Science, Vol. 2 (pp. 56–65). City University London.
61.
MorganG.BarrièreI.WollB. (2006). The influence of typology and modality on the acquisition of verb agreement morphology in British Sign Language. First Language, 26(1), 19–43.
62.
MorganG.HermanR.BarrièreI.WollB. (2008). The onset and mastery of spatial language in children acquiring British Sign Language. Cognitive Development, 23, 1–19.
63.
MorganG.WollB. (2002). The development of complex sentences in British Sign Language. In MorganG.WollB. (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 255–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
64.
MorganG.WollB. (2003). The development of reference switch encoded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In EmmoreyK. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 297–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
NoverS. (2005). Working together as language planners and educational leaders: Language planning and considerations for ASL/English bilingual education. Paper presented at the 1st Biennal ASL/English Bilingualism in Deaf Education Conference, Washington, DC, March 2005, Gallaudet University.
66.
NiederbergerN. (2004). Capacités langagières en Langue des Signes Française et en français écrit chez l’enfant sourd bilingue: quelles relations?Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
67.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
68.
PapaspyrouC.von MeyennA.MatthaeiM.HerrmannB. (2008). Grammatik der Deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
69.
PernissP. (2001). Numerus und Quantifikation in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Köln, Germany.
70.
PernissP. (2007). Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua, 117, 1315–1338.
71.
PfauR. (2001). Typologische und strukturelle Aspekte der Negation in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. In LeuningerH.WempeK. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000 – Theorie und Anwendung (pp. 13–33). Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
72.
PfauR. (2004). The grammar of headshake: Sentential negation in German Sign Language. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
73.
PfauR.QuerJ. (2002). V-to-Neg raising and negative concord in three sign languages. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 27, 73–86.
74.
PfauR.QuerJ. (2007). On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. In PernissP.PfauR.SteinbachM. (Eds.), Visible variations – Comparative studies on sign language structure (Trends in linguistics – Studies and monographs) (pp. 129–161). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
75.
PfauR.SteinbachM. (2005). Plural formation in German Sign Language: Constraints and strategies. In LeuningerH.HappD. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (pp. 111–144). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
76.
PfauR.SteinbachM. (2006). Pluralization in sign and speech: A cross-modal typology study. Linguistic Typology, 10, 135–182.
77.
PizzutoE. (2002). The development of Italian Sign Language (LIS) in deaf preschoolers. In MorganG.WollB. (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 77–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
78.
Plaza-PustC.Morales-LópezE. (2008). Sign bilingualism: Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations. In Plaza-PustC.Morales-LópezE. (Eds.), Sign bilingualism – Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations (pp. 333–380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
79.
PrinzP.NiederbergerN.GarganiJ.MannW. (2005). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural issues in the development of tests of sign language. Paper presented at the 10th International Congress for the Study of Child Language (ICSL), Berlin, Germany, July 25–29, 2005.
80.
PrinzP.StrongM.KuntzeM. (1994). The test of ASL. Unpublished test. San Francisco: San Francisco State University, California Research Institute.
81.
RathmannC. (2003). The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from German Sign Language (DGS). In GriffinW. E. (Ed.), The role of agreement in natural language: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Texas Linguistics Society Conference (pp. 181–192). Austin, TX: Texas Linguistic Forum.
82.
RathmannC.MathurG. (2002). Is verb agreement the same crossmodally? In MeierR. P.CormierK.Quinto-PozosD. (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 370–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
ReillyJ. (2006). How faces come to serve grammar: The development of nonmanual morphology in American Sign Language. In SchickB.MarscharkM.SpencerP. E. (Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 262–290). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84.
ReillyJ.AndersonD. (2002). FACES: The acquisition of non-manual morphology in ASL. In MorganG.WollB. (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 159–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
85.
SchembriA.WigglesworthG.JohnstonT.LeighG.AdamR.BakerR. (2002). Issues in development of the Test Battery for Australian Sign Language Morphology and Syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18–40.
86.
SchickB. (1987). The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana (ProQuest UMI number: 8807670).
87.
SchickB. (1990). The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In LucasC. (Ed.), Sign language research – Theoretical issues (pp. 358–374). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
88.
SlobinD. I.HoitingN.KuntzeM.LindertR.WeinbergA.PyersJ.. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. In EmmoreyK. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 271–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
89.
SupallaT.NewportE.SingletonJ.SupallaS.CoulterG.MetlayD. (1995). An overview of the Test Battery for American Sign Language Morphology and Syntax. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), April 20, 1995, San Francisco, CA.
90.
SupallaT.NewportE.SingletonJ.SupallaS.CoulterG.MetlayD. (n.d.). The Test Battery for American Sign Language Morphology and Syntax. Unpublished manuscript.
91.
TomaselloM. (2003). Constructing a language – A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92.
Van DykT.WeidemanA. (2004). Switching construct: On the selection of an appropriate blueprint for academic literacy assessment. Journal of Language Teaching, 38(1), 1–13.
93.
Van de VijverF.LeungK. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In BerryJ. W.PoortingaY. H.PandeyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed.) (pp. 257–300). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
94.
VinsonD. P.CormierK.DenmarkT.SchembriA.ViglioccoG. (2008). The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1079–1087.
95.
WiigE. H.SecordW. A. (forthcoming). Making sense of test results – A practical guide. Arlington, TX: White Paper. Knowledge Research Institute.
96.
WoolfeT.HermanR.RoyP.WollB. (2010). Early lexical development in native signers: A BSL adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates CDI. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(3), 322–331.
97.
ZeshanU. (2004). Hand, head, and face – Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology, 8, 1–58.
98.
ZeshanU. (Ed.). (2006). Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages (Sign language typology series). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Ishara Press.
