Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Sign language assessment tools are important for professionals working with DHH children to measure sign language development and competence. Adaptation of an existing test can be a solution when initiating assessment in a sign language community; the adaptation process must adhere to key principles and procedures. We introduce the principles of test adaptation and outline the challenges we faced in adapting the (Herman, Grove, Holmes, Morgan, Sutherland & Woll 2004) to German Sign Language and American Sign Language. Challenges included decisions regarding the normative sample, the use of terminology, and variations in the scoring protocols to fit with each language. The steps taken throughout the test adaptation process are described, together with a comparison of parallels and differences. We conclude that test adaptation is an effective method of developing practical tools for sign language assessment and contributes to a better understanding of sign language development.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarons, Debra & Ruth Morgan
    2003 Classifier predicates and the creation of multiple perspectives in South African Sign Language. Sign Language Studies3(2). 125–156. 10.1353/sls.2003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Diane
    2006 Lexical development of deaf children acquiring signed languages. InBrenda Schick (ed.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 135–160. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Anne, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer
    2016The linguistics of sign languages: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199 [Google Scholar]
  4. Becker, Claudia
    2009 Narrative competences of Deaf children in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics12(2). 113–160. doi:  10.1075/sll.12.2.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.12.2.02bec [Google Scholar]
  5. Becker, Claudia, Martje Hansen & Patricia Barbeito Rey-Geissler
    2018 Narrative Kompetenzen hörgeschädigter Kinder – Die Interaktion von Gebärdenspracherwerb und Theory of Mind. Das Zeichen108. 90–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boudreault, Patrick, Kyra Zimmer & Charlotte Enns
    2015 Creating videos to assess children’s signed language narrative skills. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED 2015). Athens, Greece, 6–9 July.
  7. Brown, Linda, Rita J. Sherbenou & Susan K. Johnsen
    2010Test of nonverbal intelligence, 4th edition. New York, NY: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen Pichler, Deborah
    2012 Acquisition. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 647–686. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.647
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.647 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cokely, Dennis & Charlotte Baker
    1991American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cormier, Kearsy, David Quinto-Pozos, Zed Sevcikova & Adam Schembri
    2012 Lexicalisation and delexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication32. 329–348. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova
    2013 Predicate structures, gesture, and simultaneity in the representation of action in British Sign Language: Evidence from deaf children and adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education18(3). 370–390. doi:  10.1093/deafed/ent020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent020 [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe 2001Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved fromhttps://rm.coe.int/CoERM​Public​Common​Search​Ser​vices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680459f97. Access date2020-​03-​02.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cravens, Elisabeth
    2013 Evaluating the utility of the Test of Narrative Language for use with deaf children via American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University of Texas Master’s thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dudis, Paul
    2004 Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 223–238. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2004.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.009 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunn, Lloyd M. & Douglas M. Dunn
    1997Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ELAN (Version 5.5) [Computer software]
    ELAN (Version 5.5) [Computer software] (2019) Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved fromhttps://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
  17. Emmorey, Karen & Judy Reilly
    1998 The development of quotation and reported action: Conveying perspective in ASL. InEve V. Clark (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum, 81–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Enns, Charlotte, Kyra Zimmer, Patrick Boudreault, Sarah Rabu & Cheryle Broszeit
    2013American Sign Language Receptive Skills Test. Winnipeg, MB: Northern Signs Research. www.northernsignsresearch.com
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Enns, Charlotte, Tobias Haug, Rosalind Herman, Robert Hoffmeister, Wolfgang Mann & Lynn McQuarrie
    2016 Exploring signed language assessment tools around the world. InMarc Marschark, Venetta Lampropoulou & Emmanouil K. Skordilis (eds.), Diversity in deaf education, 171–218. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190493073.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190493073.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Enns, Charlotte, Kyra Zimmer, Cheryle Broszeit & Sarah Rabu
    2019American Sign Language Expressive Skills Test. Winnipeg, MB: Northern Signs Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Erlenkamp, Sonja
    2012 Syntax: Aus Gebärden Sätze bilden. InHanna Eichmann, Martje Hansen & Jens Heßmann (eds.), Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache: sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven, 165–198. Seedorf: Signum-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fischer, Renate & Simon Kollien
    2006 Constructed action in DGS: Roses Aktions = Fragmente (Teil II). Das Zeichen74. 448–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gagarina, Natalia, Daleen Klop, Sari Kunnari, Koula Tantele, Taina Välimaa, Ingrida Balčiūnienė, Ute Bohnacker & Joel Walters
    2012 MAIN – Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics56. 1–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, Wyatte
    2017 What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in Deaf children. Maternal and Child Health Journal21(5). 961–965. doi:  10.1007/s10995‑017‑2287‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y [Google Scholar]
  25. Hänel, Barbara
    2005Der Erwerb der Deutschen Gebärdensprache als Erstsprache: die frühkindliche Sprachentwicklung von Subjekt- und Objektverbkongruenz in DGS. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Happ, Daniela & Marc-Oliver Vorkörper
    2014Deutsche Gebärdensprache: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Frankfurt: Fachhochschulverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, Raychelle, Heidi Holmes & Donna Mertens
    2009 Research ethics in sign language communities. Sign Language Studies9(2). 104–131. doi:  10.1353/sls.0.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.0.0011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hastie, Trevor & Robert Tibshirani
    1990Generalized additive models. London: Chapman and Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haug, Tobias & Wolfgang Mann
    2008 Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign languages – A review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education13(1). 138–147. doi:  10.1093/deafed/enm027
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm027 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haug, Tobias
    2011 Approaching sign language test construction: Adaptation of the German Sign Language receptive skills test. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education16(3). 343–361. 10.1093/deafed/enq062
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq062 [Google Scholar]
  31. Henner, Jon, Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Rama Novodgrodsky & Robert Hoffmeister
    2016 American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology26. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982 [Google Scholar]
  32. Herman, Rosalind
    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 Deaf22(3). 3–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2015 Language assessment of Deaf learners. InHarry Knoors & Marc Marschark (eds.), Educating Deaf learners: Creating a global evidence base. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215194.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215194.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  34. Herman, Rosalind, Sallie Holmes & Bencie Woll
    1999Assessing BSL development: Receptive skills test. Coleford, UK: Forest Bookshop.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Herman, Rosalind, Nicola Grove, Sallie Holmes, Gary Morgan, Hillary Sutherland & Bencie Woll
    2004Assessing BSL development: Production test (narrative skills). London, UK: City University.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmeister, Robert, Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Jonathan Henner, Rachel Benedict, Sarah Fish, Patrick Rosenburg, Frances Conlin-Luippold & Rama Novogrodsky
    2014The American Sign Language Assessment Instrument (ASLAI): Progress report and preliminary findings. Working paper. Boston, MA: Center for the Study of Communication and the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Iliescu, Dragos
    2017Adapting tests in linguistic and cultural situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316273203
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316273203 [Google Scholar]
  38. International Test Commission
    International Test Commission 2017The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Second edition). Retrieved fromwww.InTestCom.org/page/16. Access Date2020-06-02.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Johnston, Trevor
    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 International6(2). 57–81. 10.1179/146431504790560582
    https://doi.org/10.1179/146431504790560582 [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    2007Australian Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jones, Neil
    2012 Reliability and dependability. InGlenn Fulcher & Fred Davidson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing, 350–362. London, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kolbe, Vera
    2019 Beobachtungsverfahren für Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Hörgeschädigtenpädagogik3/2019 169–174. doi:  10.18452/22201
    https://doi.org/10.18452/22201 [Google Scholar]
  44. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to do linguistics with R: data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  45. Liddell, Scott
    2003Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  46. Labov, William & Joshua Waletsky
    1967 Oral versions of personal experiences. InJune Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics37. 95–142. 10.1515/thli.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    2012 Utterance reports and constructed action in sign and spoken languages. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 365–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Meier, Richard P.
    1991 Language acquisition by Deaf children. American Scientist79(1). 60–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2002 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. InRichard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Meristo, Marek, Kerstin Falkman, Erland Hjelmquist, Mariantonia Tedoldi, Luca Surian & Michael Siegal
    2007 Language and theory of mind reasoning: Evidence from deaf children in bilingual and oralist environments. Developmental Psychology43. 1156–1169. 10.1037/0012‑1649.43.5.1156
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1156 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mitchell, Ross & Michael Karchmer
    2004 Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies4. 138–163. 10.1353/sls.2004.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert Lee
    2000The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Morgan, Gary & Bencie Woll
    2007 Understanding sign language classifiers through a polycomponential approach. Lingua117. 1159–1168. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Novogrodsky, Rama & Natalia Meir
    2020 Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Applied Psycholinguistics41(4). 817–845. doi:  10.1017/S0142716420000247
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000247 [Google Scholar]
  56. Oakland, Thomas & Hollie Lane
    2004 Language, reading and readability formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing4(3). 239–252. 10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3 [Google Scholar]
  57. O’Sullivan, Barry & Cyril Weir
    2011 Test development and validation. InO’Sullivan, Barry (ed.), Language testing: theories and practices (1st publ. ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Papaspyrou, Chrissostomos, Alexander von Meyenn, Michaela Matthaei & Bettina Herrmann
    2008Grammatik der Deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Quinto-Pozos, David
    2007 Can constructed action be considered obligatory?Lingua117. 1285–1314. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Reilly, Judy
    2005 How faces come to serve grammar: The development of nonmanual morphology in American Sign Language. InBrenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Patricia Elisabeth Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 262–290. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  62. Reckwitz, Andreas
    2011 Die Kontingenzperspektive der ›Kultur‹. Kulturbegriffe, Kulturtheorien und das kulturwissenschaftliche Forschungsprogramm. InFriedrich Jaeger & Burkhard Liebsch (eds.), Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften: Grundlagen und Schlüsselbegriffe, 1–20. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. 10.1007/978‑3‑476‑05012‑0_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05012-0_1 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schembri Adam, Kearsy Cormier & Jordan Fenlon
    2018 Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics3(89). 1–40. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.468
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schembri, Adam, Gillian Wigglesworth, Trevor Johnston, Greg Leigh, Robert Adam & Roz Barker
    2002 Issues in development of the Test Battery for Australian Sign Language Morphology and Syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education7(1). 18–40. 10.1093/deafed/7.1.18
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.1.18 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schick, Brenda
    2002 The expression of grammatical relations in deaf toddlers learning ASL. InGary Morgan & Bencie Woll (eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition, 143–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.2.09sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.2.09sch [Google Scholar]
  66. 2010 The development of American Sign Language and Manually Coded English systems. InMarc Marschark & Patricia Elisabeth Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Volume 1, second edition), 229–240. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schwager, Waldemar
    2012 Morphologie: Bildung und Modifikation von Gebärden. InHanna Eichmann, Martje Hansen & Jens Heßmann (eds.) Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache: sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven, 61–110. Seedorf: Signum-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sign Language Linguistic Society
    Sign Language Linguistic Society 2016Ethics statement for sign language research. Retrieved fromhttps://slls.eu/slls-ethics-statement/. Access date2019-09-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Simms, Laurene, Sharon Baker & Diane M. Clark
    2013 The Standardized Visual Communication and Sign Language Checklist for signing children. Sign Language Studies14(1). 101–124. 10.1353/sls.2013.0029
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0029 [Google Scholar]
  70. Singleton, Jenny L. & Gary Morgan
    2006 Natural signed language acquisition within the social context of the classroom. InBrenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Patricia Elisabeth Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 344–376. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Singleton, Jenny L. & Elissa L. Newport
    2004 When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology49. 370–407. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Singleton, Jenny L. & Samuel Supalla
    2011 Assessing children’s proficiency in natural signed languages. InMarc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Vol. 1, 2nd edition), 289–302. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199750986.013.0022
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199750986.013.0022 [Google Scholar]
  73. Valli, Clayton, Ceil Lucas & Kristin Mulroney
    2005Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction (Fourth edition). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Valmaseda, Marian, Mar Pérez, Rosalind Herman, Nuria Ramírez & Ignacio Montero
    . September 2013Evaluación de la competencia gramatical en LSE: Proceso de adaptación del BSL Receptive Skill Test (test de habilidades receptivas). Paper presented at theCongreso CNLSE sobre la Investigación de la Lengua de Signos. Madrid, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error