THE SELF-CONCEPT OF THE HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILD

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

Forthe Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

R onnie L. Chew, B. S.

Denton, Texas

May, 1975

Chew, Ronnie L., The Self-Concept of the Hearing-

Impaired Child. Master of Science (Clinical Psychology), May, 1975,

44 pp., 5 tables, bibliography, 38 titles.

This study was an investigation of the relationship between

the self-concepts of hearing-impaired children and the self-concepts

of normal hearing children. Sixty-four hearing-impaired children

and nineteen normal hearing children were given the Primary Self-

Concept Inventory, the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale,

and were rated by a teacher using the Bristol Social Adjustment

Guide. The differences between means were analyzed and tested for

significance.

It was concluded that there is no difference between the self-

concept of the hearing-impaired child and the self-concept of the

normal hearing child. It was further concluded that the instru-

ments currently available for measuring self-concept are poor and

inadequate. Further research on the self-concept of the hearing-

impaired child was recommended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TA BLES.o......................... ........ iv

ChapterI. INTRODUCTION................... ........ .1

Statement of the ProblemDefinitions of the TermsHypotheses

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 7

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................. 17

SubjectsInstrumentsProcedures

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................26

R e s ultsDiscussion

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . 35

SummaryC onclusionsImplications

BIB LIOGRA PHY................................40

i-ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Domain and Factor Descriptions for the PrimarySelf-Concept Inventory .......... ......... 20

II. Means, Standard Deviations and t-values of the

PSCI Scores................................ 27

III. Means, Standard Deviations and t-values of the

Piers-Harris Scores.............. . ........ 28

IV. Means, Standard Deviations and t-values of the

Bristol Scores.................... .. ........ 29

V. Correlation Coefficients..... ............... 30

iv

u -, MOW-, .

CHA PTER I

INTR ODUCT ION

The terms self-concept, self-image, self-awareness, and

self-perception are frequently used as equivalents by authorities in

child development (6). The central point of each of these con-

structs is the process of learning who you are. This is a constant

and dynamic process which begins at birth and does not cease until

death.

The self-concept is the culmination of all the social and per-

sonal experiences the individual has had. Although all impinging

stimuli from the individual's environment are important to the

development of the self-concept, most theorists agree that social

interaction in the form of verbal communication is crucial (1). Man

perceives and defines himself as he believes others perceive and

define him. Charles Cooley refers to this phenomenon as the

"reflected or looking-glass self" (2). The ability to communicate

effectively is the most basic factor in social interactions. The feed-

back gained from communication provides experiences for the

individual. This feedback helps him determine how he will respond

1

2

to new situations and affects the nature of the perception of himself

as an adequate and worthy individual (7). In the deaf child, one of

the primary components of communication is absent or seriously

impaired. Can the child with such a sensory deprivation success -

fully attain a well developed self-concept?

Myklebust (4) considers audition as the most important con-

tact sense that man possesses. Deafness is a psychodynamically

significant impairment to social and intellectual development.

Although man is a highly adaptable animal, deafness greatly limits

his world of experience. Studies of self-perception in hearing-

impaired children indicate that most feel aloof, disengaged, disas-

sociated, and isolated with respect to other people. They feel they

are watching a world rather than participating in it.

There appears to be a need for further study in the area of

the development of the self-concept, particularly in hearing-impaired

children. Are hearing-impaired children's self-concepts as well

developed as are the self-concepts of normal hearing children? Are

assessment techniques standardized on normal hearing children fair

measures of the self-concept of the hearing-impaired child? Do

teacher's ratings of behavior in the classroom reflect a child's self-

concept? These are some of the questions investigated in this paper.

It is hoped that the results and conclusions drawn from this study will

3

give professionals who provide services to hearing-impaired children

the knowledge necessary to better understand the self-concept of

these children. This should aid in better planning to meet the needs

of such children.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to investigate the relationship

between the self-concepts of hearing-impaired children and the

self-concepts of normal hearing children. Will deaf children as a

group exhibit the same range of self-concept development as do nor-

mal hearing children?

Definitions of the Terms

The following definitions were pertinent to the study:

1. Self-concept: Self-concept, as used in this study, is

the degree to which the individual perceives and values himself in

daily interactions within the home and school environment. The

three general aspects of self-concept are as follows: (1) personal-

self, or the individual's assessment of his relative physical size and

his emotional state; (2) social-self, or the individual's assessment

of his acceptance by the peer group and of his role in the helper-

helpee relationship; and (3) intellectual-self, or the individual's

assessment of his tendency to succeed or fail in task-oriented

4

pursuits and his ability to conform to classroom behavior expecta-

tions (3).

2. Hearing-impaired: The following definition, as estab-

lished by the Texas Education Agency, was used in this study.

Pupils who are deaf and severely hard of hearing

(auditorially handicapped) are those whose hearing is

nonfunctional for the purpose of understanding normal

conversation and results in a delay in language and/or

speech development or otherwise creates an educational

handicap (5, p. 56).

Hypotheses

The hypotheses under investigation in this study were,

1. Self-concept, as measured by the Primary Self-

Concept Inventory, would be as well developed in hearing-impaired

children as in normal hearing children. There would be no signifi-

cant difference between the self-concept of the two groups.

2. Self-concept, as measured by the Piers-Harris Self-

Concept Scale, would be as well developed in hearing-impaired

children as in normal hearing children. There would be no signifi-

cant difference between the self-concept of the two groups.

3. The hearing-impaired child would show the same

degree of maladjustment as would the normal hearing child when

behavior is rated by the teacher on the Bristol Social Adjustment

5

Guides. There would be no significant difference between the two

groups.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Eisenson, Jon, J. Jeffery Auer, and John V. Irwin, ThePsychology of Communication, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963,

2. Gergen, Kenneth J., The Concept of Self, New York, Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971.

3. Muller, Douglas G. , and Robert Leonetti, Primary Self -

Concept Inventory Test Manual, Austin, Texas, Learning

Concepts, 1974.

4. Myklebust, Helmer R. , The Psychology of Deafness Sensory

Deprivation, Learning, and Adjustment, New York, Grune

& Stratton, 1966.

5. Texas Education Agency, Administrative Guide and Handbookfor Special Education, Austin, Texas, State of Texas,

1971.

6. Wylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, A Critical Survey of Pertinent

Research Literature, Lincoln, Nebraska, University ofNebraska Press, 1961.

7. Yamamoto, Kaoru, editor, The Child and His Image, Self-

Concept in the Early Years, Boston, Houghton MifflinCompany, 1971.

6

CHA PT ER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Self-concept has been the subject of numerous investiga-

tions and studies. Despite the large number of studies cited in the

literature, there appears to be no precide consensus as to either the

definition of the phenomenon or to the exact role it plays in the

development of the child. Wylie (21) provides an extensive review

of the literature on self-concept. The relationship between self-

concept and numerous factors has been studied. These include, for

example, learning, anxiety, adjustment, intelligence, and academic

achievement. Various studies have found significant relationships

between self-concept and these variables, whereas others have

reported non-significant and often conflicting findings in studies

involving these same variables.

McCandless (11), after an extensive review of the litera-

ture on self-concept, concluded the following:

The considerable body of research on traits, atti-tudes, behaviors, and various qualities associated withthe self-concept indicates rather clearly that good self-concepts are associated with such desirable characteris-tics as low anxiety and generally good adjustment,popularity, and effectiveness in group relations but

7

8

relative independence from the group. . . . Thosewith good self-concepts seem more honest with them-selves than individuals with poor self-concepts, andappear to be less defensive (pp. 203-204).

Fitts (5), in an examination of self-concept, concluded

that the variables of age, sex, education, intelligence,and race

apparently exerted no systematic effect upon the self-concept. In a

later replication of Fitts' study, Thompson (20) found significant

differences in self-concept according to age and race. He found a

linear relationship between age and self-concept, with self-esteem

increasing with age. Although the relationship between age and

self-concept is much clearer than that of race and self-concept,

Thompson found Negroes having lower levels of self-esteem than do

whites. Fitts (6), in reviewingcseven years ofresearch in develop-

ing the Tennessee Self ConceptScIe, acknowledges the often con-

flicting studies which have arisen from the project. He concluded

that self-concept is a significant Variable in human behavior and that

further empirical study is needed to understand fully its effect.

Piers and Harris (17), in their development of a measure

of self-concept in children, reported positive but low correlations

between IQ and self-concept and academic achievement and self-

concept. They further noted the lower self-concept of institution-

alized children when compared to public school children.

9

Yamamoto (22) concluded that it is difficult to study the

development of the self-concept in children because of the poorly

developed means of measurement. The two sources from which the

functioning of the self must be inferred, that of the particular person

who comes in contact with the individual and the individual himself,

cannot provide totally satisfactory data.

The problems encountered in the study of the self-concepts

of normal hearing children have been relatively small when compared

to the difficulty met by the investigator in examining the self-concepts

of hearing-impaired children whose ability to communicate is greatly

impaired. The investigation of the development of the self-concept

in the hearing-impaired child has been very limited. The lack of

empirical psychological studies on the effects of deafness on the

developing organism have resulted in a polarization of theory and

thought. One psychological school postulates that the hearing-

impaired child develops normally in all behavioral areas, except

language acquisition (10). The other adheres to an "altered organ-

ism" theory of the hearing-impaired child in which the deaf child

is not only physically different from the normal hearing child, but

is also emotionally and psychologically different (15).

Mulholland (14) pointed out that studies of sensory depriva-

tion generally support the "altered organism" approach when

9-*Qffl

10

comparing the hearing-impaired child to the normal hearing child

on visual processing of information, cognitive development,

pers onal-s ocial development, and inters ens ory functioning.

Further support is given to this approach by Neyhus and Mycklebust

(16) when they suggested that " . . . deafness appears to alter

brain processes . . . [and] may account for the differences in

memory and other behavioral attributes frequently mentioned by

these experienced in the psychology of deafness" (p. 91).

Furth (7) has become one of the leading proponents of the

theory that the hearing-impaired child develops normally, except in

the area of language development. When questioned as to the exis-

tence of a "deaf personality,'" he states,

Our answer is no. We do find stereotypic and psycho-logically unhealthy reactions toward deafness in oursociety, and the inevitable result is behavior that isrestrictive and immature. Some of these results arepractically a psychological necessity, a kind of self-defense on the part of the young deaf person (7, 83-84).

A study by Blanton and Nunnally (2) examined the self

attitudes of deaf adolescents by the use of the semantic differential

scaling of self and self-related concepts. Their results pictured

the deaf adolescent as somewhat negativistic in attitudes toward

themselves and others in general and rather confident in the accuracy

of their judgments. The deaf do not appear to be under emotional

I1

conflict about themselves or their status in a hearing world. How -

ever, the validity of using a measuring device designed for use with

a hearing population was questioned by the authors.

Schlesinger and Meadow (19) examined the self-image of

deaf children using a test designed to measure the child's interpre-

tation of how other people view him in relation to his own self-

appraisal. The results indicate that deaf children in a residential

school who have deaf parents score significantly higher on the self-

image test than do deaf children with hearing parents. Meadows

(12), in an earlier study reached the following conclusion:

It has been suggested that definitions of age and sexroles, in relation to a hearing handicap, congruenceof the child's hearing status with that of his family,his teachers, and peer group members, his ability toachieve academically and linguistically (compared toother's expectations) all contribute to the deaf child'spositive or negative definition of his own self-worth(p. 14).

In a replication of her 1967 study, Meadows (13) examined

one more variable, family climate. Her hypothesis that the most

favorable self-image will be found among deaf children whose parents

are deaf and whose families score high on a measure of family cli-

mate, was confirmed.

A study by Craig (4) used a sociometric instrument to

compare the self-concept of three groups of deaf children: one group

12

from a residential school for the deaf, one group from a day school

for the deaf, and one group integrated in a regular public school.

She found that deaf children from the residential school rated them-

selves significantly more positively than children from the other

groups. She suggests that her findings may be a function of the pro-

tective institutional environment.

There are few studies which compare the self-concept of

deaf children with that of normal hearing children. One of the earli-

est is that of Brunschwig (3). She found that deaf children tend to

rate themselves superior to others. They consider themselves to

be prettier, to work harder in school, and to be smarter.

Barker (1) suggested that deaf children's self-judgments

of superiority may be an attempt to rationalize basic feelings of

inadequacy; however, it seems more likely that deaf children simply

reflect a real feeling of well-being. The young deaf child needs an

unusual amount of help and attention in the early years. This added

attention in both home and school may satisfy his needs for attention

and approval and, in a sense, inflate his feelings of superiority.

In an adaptation of Erkis on's theoretical model of the eight

ages of man, Kennedy (9) took into consideration the differences in

adjustment encountered by individuals with a hearing loss. She

stressed the uniqueness of each child and the variation in potential

13

and demeanor as found in normal hearing children. She concluded

that problems with self-acceptance and identification are greater for

the deaf child than for the partially deaf and normal hearing child.

Rainer and Altshuler (18) have indicated that the crucial

focus in providing mental health services to the hearing-impaired

population is the study of personality development, including the

nature of the self-image and the ideal self. They concluded that the

relative role of communication deprivation in personality develop-

ment still has not been fully clarified. Of primary importance at this

time is further research and basic psychological observations of deaf

children.

A review of the literature found a rather limited number of

empirical studies examining the self-concept of the hearing-impaired

child. No recent studies were found which investigated the self-

concept of hearing-impaired children as compared to normal hearing

children. In view of the dearth of theoretical knowledge on the

subject, there seems to be a need for information which might con-

tribute to the body of knowledge regarding the self-concept of the

hearing-impaired child.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Barker, Roger G., Beatrice A. Wright, Lee Meyerson, andMollie R. Genick, Adjustment toPhysical Handicap andIllness: A Survey f the Social Psychology ofPhysique andDisability, New York, Social Science Research Council,1953.

2. Blanton, Richard L. and Jum C. Nunnally, "Language Habits,Cognitive Functions, and Self -Attitudes in the Deaf, "unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, VanderbiltUniversity, Nashville, Tennessee, 1965.

3. Brunschwig, Lily, A Stud of Some Personait Aspects of DeafChildren, New York, Teachers College Press, ColumbiaUniversity, 1936.

4. Craig, Helen B., "A Sociometric Investigation of the Self-C oncept of the Deaf Child," American Annals of the Deaf,CX (1965), 456-478.

5. Fitts, William H., "The Self Concept and Human Behavior,"Nashville Mental Health Center Research Bulletin, No. 11965.

6. , "The Self Concept and Behavior: Overviewand Supplement," Dede Wallace Center Monograph,Nashville, Tennessee, No. 7 (1972).

7. Furth, Hans G., Deafness and Learning, a PsychosocialA pproach, Belmont, California, Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Inc., 1973.

8. Hughes, Ronald C., "An Investigation of the Self -Concept ofChildren with Low Levels of Intelligence," unpublishedmaster's thesis, Department of Psychology, North TexasState University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

14

15

9. Kennedy, Ann E. C., "The Effects of Deafness on Personality,

A Discussion Based on the Theoretical Model of Erik Erik-

son's Eight Ages of Man, " Journal of Rehabilitation of the

Deaf, VI (January, 1973), 22-33.

10. Levine, Edna S., The Psychology 6f Deafness Techniques of

Appraisal for Rehabilitation, New York, Columbia Univer-

sity Press, 1967.

11. McCandless, Boyd R., Children and Adolescents Behavior and

Development, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

12. Meadow, Kathryn P. , "Deafness and Self-Image in Differing

School Settings," unpublished paper, Langley Porter Neuro-

psychiatric Institute, San Francisco, California, 1971.

13. , "Self-Image, Family Climate, and Deaf-

ness, " Social Forces, XLVII (June, 1969), 428-438.

14. Mulholland, Ann M. , "Congruence of the Problems of Deaf

Adolescents as Perceived by Parents, Teachers, and

Selves, " unpublished dissertation, Fordham University,

New York, 1971.

15. Myklebust, Helmer R., The Psychologyof Deafness Sensory

Deprivation, Learning and Adjustment, New York, Grune &

Stratton, 1966.

16. Neyhus, A. and Helmer Myklebust, Speechreading Failures in

Deaf Children, Institute for Language Disorders, North-

western University, 1969.

17. Piers, Ellen V. and Dale B. Harris, "Age and Other Corre-

lates of Self -Concept in Children," Journal of Educational

Psychology, LV (April, 1964), 91-95.

18. Rainer, John D. and Kenneth Z. A ltshuler, "New Directions in

Psychiatry for Deaf People," Deafness, Yearbook of the

Professional Rehabilitation Workers with the Adult Deaf, III

(1973), 147-157.

16

19. Schlesinger, Hilde S. and Kathryn P. Meadow, Sound and Sign-,Childhood Deafness and Mental Health, Los Angeles,University of California Press, 1973.

20. Thompson, Warren, "Correlates of the Self Concept," DedeWallace Center Monograph, Nashville, Tennessee, No. 6(1972).

21. Wylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, A Critical Survey ofPertinent Research Literature, Lincoln, Nebraska, Univer-sity of Nebraska Press, 1961.

22. Yamamoto, Kaoru, editor, The Child and His Image, SelfConcept in the Early Years, Boston, Houghton MifflinCompany, 1972.

CHA PTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship

between the self-concept of the normal hearing child and the self-

concept of the hearing-impaired child. Two measures of self-

concept and a teacher's rating of behavior were specifically selected

and administered to each of nineteen normal hearing children and

sixty-four hearing-impaired children. The chapter describes the

subjects used, the tests and procedures used, and the treatment of

the resulting data.

Subjects

The subjects in this study were nineteen normal hearing

children and sixty-four hearing-impaired children. The normal

hearing children were third-grade students at Stonewall Jackson

Elementary School in the Dallas Independent School District during

the spring semester of the 1973-74 school year. The hearing-

impaired children were students of the Dallas County Wide Day School

for the Deaf, Stonewall Jackson campus, during the spring semester

of the 1973-74 school year. The mean age for all subjects was

17

18

10. 06 years. The total sample consisted of forty-five males and

thirty-eight females. The hearing-impaired sample was composed

of thirty-six males and twenty-eight females with a mean age of 10. 17

years. The normal hearing sample consisted of nine males and ten

females with a mean age of 9. 68 years.

Instruments

There are a large number of scales available today which

purport to measure the self-concept of children. Several of these

were examined and found to be inappropriate due to the advanced

reading level required of the examinee to understand them. The

Annual Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children and Youth (5) reports

that the reading level of the hearing-impaired child shows a wide

divergence from that of his normal hearing age peers. At the age of

ten years, the average hearing-impaired child is reading at the

middle second-grade level. The diminished reading ability of the

deaf child greatly decreased the utility of these scales.

The Primary Self-Concept Inventory developed by Muller

and Leonetti was deemed appropriate for use in this study because

the subjects were not required to read to complete the inventory.

The inventory consists of a series of pictures in which the individual

must select the child in each picture which he feels is most like him.

19

The form for boys contains only pictures of boys, and the form for

girls contains only pictures of girls. A positive self-concept is

indicated by identification with the child who is pictured in a positive

role; or in the case of the dimension of physical size, identification

with the physically larger child also indicates a more positive self-

concept. The higher the score, which can range from zero to eight-

een, the more positive the self-concept.

In addition to a full-scale score, the inventory is designed to

measure six aspects or factors of self-concept. These six factors

are clustered into three major domains. The domain and factor

descriptions appear in Table I. The higher the domain score, which

can range from zero to six, the more positive the self-concept. The

higher the factor score, which can range from zero to three, the

more positive the self-concept.

Reliability studies on the original standardization group (2)

produced a test-retest coefficient of correlation of . 91. In a later

study by the authors (3), a test-retest correlation coefficient of . 57

is reported. They explained the moderate reliability produced in the

second study as an effect of the relatively small sample size. The

authors report high validity of the test as assessed by repeated factor

analyses (3).

20

TABLE I

DOMAIN AND FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE PRIMARYSELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY

Domain Factor Description

Personal-self

Social-self

Intellectual-self

1. Physical size

2. Emotional state

3. Peer acceptance

4. Helpfulness

5. Success

6. Student-self

The child's perception of his/her relative physical size.

The child's perception of his/her emotional state, i. e. ,happy or sad, angry or notangry.

The child's perception of his/her acceptance by his/her peergroup.

The child's perception ofhimself/herself in the helper-helpee relationship.

The child's perception of his/her tendency to succeed orfail in task-oriented pursuits.

The child's perception of his/her ability to conform toclassroom behavior expecta-tions.

The Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale was also

used as an additional measure of self-concept. This scale was

chosen because of the simple vocabulary and the relative absence of

21

abstract terms. The Piers-Harris scale consists of eighty state-

ments about the self to which the individual responds with yes or no.

The higher the score, which can range from zero to eighty, the more

positive the self-concept.

The scale was designed to measure categories suggested in

an earlier study by Jersild (1). After collecting children's state-

ments about what they liked and disliked about themselves, Jersild

grouped the statements into the following categories: (1) physical

characteristics, (2) clothing and grooming, (3) health and physi-

cal soundness, (4) home and family, (5) enjoyment of recreation,

(6) ability in sports and play, (7) ability in school, (8) intellec-

tual abilities, (9) special talents, (10) just me, myself, and

(11) personality, character, inner resources, and emotional tenden-

cies. Piers and Harris attempted to write statements to cover each

grouping. By means of multiple-factor analysis, the authors

identified six interpretable factors. The factors are as follows:

(1) Behavior, (2) Intellectual and School Status, (3) Physical

Appearance and Attributes, (4) Anxiety, (5) Fbpularity, and

(6) Happiness and Satisfaction. The higher the score on each factor,

the more positive is the self-concept.

Reliability data for the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept

Scale is derived from the original standardization sample (4). The

22

Spearman-Brown odd-even formula produced coefficients of . 90 and

.87. A retest four months later on one-half of the original sample

gave c oefficie nts of . 72 and . 71. The authors report that one inves-

tigation of the validity of the test produced a . 68 correlation between

the scale and the Lipsitt Children's Self-Concept Scale.

The Bristol Social Adjustment Guide was used to provide a

measure of adjustment within the school environment. The teacher

of each child was asked by the investigator to rate that child's

behavior in school. The higher the total score, which can range

from zero to 104, the more severe the behavior problem. In addi-

tion to a total score, two scale scores can be determined: Unract, or

under-reacting modes of maladjustment; and Ovract, or over-

reacting modes of maladjustment. The core syndromes included in

Unract are Unforthcomingness, Withdrawal, and Depression. The

core syndromes included in Ovract are Inconsequence, Hostility, and

Peer-Maladaptiveness. The higher the Unract scores, which can

range from zero to forty-one, the more severe the behavior problem.

The higher the Ovract scores, which can range from zero to sixty-

three, the more severe the behavior problem.

Stott (6) reports a reliability coefficient of . 80 as calculated

by Winer's formula. Internal reliability as determined by Nunnally's

modified Alpha coefficient is reported at .83 and . 91.

23

Procedures

The subjects were given the Piers -Harris Children's Self

Concept Scale and the Primary Self-Concept Inventory during the

same testing session, which lasted approximately one hour and

thirty minutes. The nineteen normal hearing children were tested

as a group. The sixty-four hearing-impaired subjects were tested

in four groups of ten children and two groups of twelve children.

All testing was completed by the end of the second day.

The Primary Self-Concept Inventory was administered to

the normal hearing group as directed in the administration manual.

In order to eliminate possible errors arising from reading difficulty,

the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale was read to all sub-

jects.

All instructions and items for the hearing-impaired groups

were given using a total communication approach. Speech was fully

supported by manual communication. A certified teacher of the deaf

using speech and Signed English assisted the examiner in administer-

ing the tests. Each child's teacher was given a Bristol Social

Adjustment Guide and was asked to complete and return it to the

examiner within one week of the day the child was tested.

In order to test for a significant difference between the nor-

mal hearing group and the hearing-impaired group, the difference

24

between the means of the two groups were tested for significance

using Fisher's t test. A Pearson product-moment coefficient of

correlation was also computed between the scores of the Piers -Harris

Children's Self Concept Scale and the Primary Self-Concept

Inventory. This was done to determine if the two scales were mea-

suring the same construct.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Jersild, Arthur T., In Search of Self, An Exploration of the Roleof the School in Promoting Self-Understanding, New York,Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952.

2. Muller, Douglas G. and Robert Leonetti, Primary Self-ConceptInventory Test Manual, Austin, Texas, Urban ResearchGroup, 1973.

3. , Primary Self-ConceptInventory Test Manual, Austin, Texas, Learning Concepts,1974.

4. Piers, Ellen V. and Dale B. Harris, Manual for the Piers -Harris Children's Self Concept Scale (The Way I Feel aboutMyself), Nashville, Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969.

5. Ries, Peter W. and Raymond J. Trybus, "Data Collection Acti-vities of the Annual Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children andYouth for the 1973-74 School Year," unpublished paper pre -sented to the Central Regional Workshop on AchievementTesting, St. Louis, Missouri, December 15, 1973.

6. Stott, D. H., Manual Bristol Social Adjustment Guides, San Diego,Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970.

25

CHA PT ER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

After the data were collected, the mean and standard devia-

tion were calculated for each group on each variable. The differ-

ence between the means of the two groups for each variable was

then tested for significance. The analysis of the data was performed

by the IBM 360 computer, North Texas State University Computer

Center, Denton, Texas.

The first hypothesis in this study stated that there would not

be a significant difference between the self-concept of the two groups

as measured by the Primary Self Concept Inventory. The differences

between the two means were tested for significance on each factor of

the scale. The level of significance was set at . 05. The data are

presented in Table II.

An examination of Table II reveals only one significant dif-

ference between the means of the two groups. Although the total

score did not produce a significant difference, the factor labeled

26

27

Physical Size produced a highly significant difference at the . 01

level.

MEANS, STANDARD

TABLE II

DEVIATIONS, AND t-VALUES OF THEPSCI SCORES

Factor Normal Hearing Hearing-Impaired t-Value

X SD X SD

Physical Size 1.10 1.20 2.33 0.82 5. 1123

Emotional State 2. 79 0.42 2.70 0.73 0.4922

Peer Acceptance 1.74 1.15 1.95 1.07 0.7583

Helpfulness 2.31 0.82 1.95 0.98 1.4626

Success 2.74 0.45 2.50 0.85 1.1575

Student-self 2.47 0.77 2.36 0.86 0.5194

Total 13. 16 1.86 13.80 3.72 0.7207

p < .05

The second hypothesis stated that there would not be a signifi-

cant difference between the self-concept of the two groups as

measured by the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. The

results of the data analysis are shown in Table III.

28

TA B LE III

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS,AND t-VALUES OF THEPIERS-HARRIS SCORES

Normal Hearing Hearing-ImpairedFactor t-Value

X SD X SD

Behavior 12.31 3.37 12.67 2.99 0.4431

Intellectual andSchool Status 10.16 3.47 12.75 2. 71 3.4229*

Physical Appearanceand Attributes 6. 05 2.99 8.30 2. 13 3. 6513*

A nxiety 6.89 2. 66 7.44 1.95 0.9753

Popularity 6. 58 2. 17 6. 72 1. 97 0.2653

Happiness andSatisfaction 6.10 2. 10 5. 08 1.16 2. 2727

Total 48.63 10.68 53.25 8.42 1.9718

p < .05

From Table III it can be seen that significant differences are

indicated on several of the Piers-Harris factors. Highly significant

differences at the . 01 level are indicated on the factors labeled

Intellectual and School Status, Physical Appearance and Attributes,

and Happiness and Satisfaction.

29

The third hypothesis of this study stated that the hearing-

impaired child would show no more indications of maladjustment when

rated by the teacher on the Bristol Social Adjustment Guide than would

the normal hearing child. The data are presented in Table IV.

TA BLE IV

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t-VALUES OF THEBRISTOL SCORES

Normal Hearing Hearing-Impaired t-Value

X SD X SD

6.74 7.05 10.72 9.43 1.7024

The difference between the means of the two groups was not significant

at the level established for this study.

In order to examine the relationship between the three instru-

ments used in this study, a Pearson product-moment coefficient of

correlation was computed using the total sample of eighty-three sub-

jects. These data are presented in Table V.

Table V indicates a negative relationship which is not statis-

tically significant between each of the two self-concept measures and

the teacher ratings. A significant, but small, relationship is indi-

cated between the Primary Self Concept Inventory and the Piers -Harris

30

TABLE V

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Variables PSCI Piers -Harris Bristol

PSCI

Piers -Harris 0.2653 0 0

Bristol -0. 1519 -0. 0189 . . .

p < . 02

Children's Self Concept Scale. The small correlation implies that

although the two scales may be measuring self-concept, they are

measuring different aspects of the same construct.

Discussion

The results of the investigation suggest that the hearing-

impaired child does not differ significantly from the hearing child on

the two measures of self-concept used in this study. A highly signi-

ficant difference between normal hearing children and hearing-

impaired children is noted on both instruments on factors relating to

physical size and attributes with the deaf child expressing a more

positive concept of his physical self. The three hypotheses are

accepted.

31

Support for a theory of normal development of the deaf

child, as expressed by Levine (3) and Furth (1), is indicated. On

all factors in which a significant difference was found, the hearing-

impaired child expressed a more positive self-concept than did the

normal hearing child.

The hearing -impaired child sees himself as bigger and

stronger than does the normal hearing child. There are two plausi-

ble explanations that could underlie these noted differences. First,

through the use of a defense-type reaction, the deaf- child may

attempt to compensate for his handicap by magnifying what he sees

as his positive qualities. As physical size and attributes are readily

observable traits, comparisons of a highly positive nature are more

easily made. The second possibility is that the hearing-impaired

child's perception of himself as being bigger and stronger is an

accurate perception of a real difference in regard to physical size.

The school in which this particular program is located is a regular

elementary school campus. As a result of their hearing impairment,

most deaf or hard-of-hearing children demonstrate significantly

depressed levels of academic achievement. In order to better match

existing educational facilities, hearing-impaired children are placed

with chronologically younger hearing classmates. This placement

results in physically more mature and larger hearing-impaired

32

children interacting daily with chronologically younger hearing

classmates. The deaf child's perception of himself as physically

bigger could thereby be an accurate perception of a real difference.

The total interaction of less concrete factors, such as

peer acceptance and emotional state, or, at least, factors not so

easily inferred from direct observation, may be more important in

shaping the self-concept than is the hearing disability. Differences

between the self-concepts of hearing-impaired and normal hearing

children is not as evident, although differences according to specified

factors which comprise the total self-concept are noted.

The adequacy of the measuring instruments is also question-

able. The data indicate that the two scales are measuring different

things or, at the most, different aspects of the same thing. Both

Wylie (4) and Yamamoto (5) have indicated that it is difficult to

study self-concept due to the poorly developed means of measuring

the construct.

The question as to the appropriateness of using tests

developed with normal hearing populations with hearing-impaired

groups also arises. In a 1974 survey, Levine (2) reports that

most psychologists and counselors who work with the deaf doubt the

real validity of using tests standardized with normal hearing popula-

tions.

33

The contrary nature of the findings from the teacher rating

scale may be an example of rater bias. The hearing-impaired sub-

jects were rated by teachers who have specialized in teaching deaf

and hard-of-hearing children. Most have never taught normal

hearing children. Those who have taught them only briefly at some

past time. These teachers, in acting as raters of behavior, could

rate behavior only in terms relative to other hearing-impaired child-

ren. Due to their experience with hearing handicapped children,

these teachers are possibly more lenient and more understanding of

any behavior problems that might exist. When these teachers rate a

hearing-impaired child, there is a greater probability of a more posi-

tive rating than if a neutral observer made the same rating.

CHA PT ER BIB LIOGRA PHY

1. Furth, Hans G., Deafness and Learning, A PsychosocialA pproach, Belmont, California, Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Inc., 1973.

2. Levine, Edna S., "Psychological Tests and Practices with theDeaf: A Survey of the State of the Art, " The Volta Review,LXXIV (May, 1974), 298-319.

3. __ , The Psychology of Deafness Techniques ofAppraisal for Rehabilitation, New York, Columbia Univer-sity Press, 1967.

4. Wylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, A Critical Survey ofPertinent Research Literature, Lincoln, Nebraska, Univer-sity of Nebraska Press, 1961.

5. Yamamoto, Kaoru, editor, The Child and His Image, SelfConcept in the Early Years, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Com-pany, 1972.

34

CHA PTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate the self-

concept of hearing-impaired children. The hypotheses for the study

were (1) there would be no significant difference between the self-

concept of the normal hearing child and the hearing-impaired child,

as measured by the Primary Self Concept Inventory; (2) there

would be no significant difference between the self-concept of the

normal hearing child and the hearing-impaired child as measured by

the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale; and (3) the hearing-

impaired child would show the same number of indications of malad-

justment as did the normal hearing child when behavior is rated by

the teacher.

Nineteen normal hearing children from the Dallas Independ-

ent School District and sixty-four hearing-impaired children from

the Dallas County Wide Day School for the Deaf were selected as sub-

jects. The sample consisted of forty-five males and thirty-eight

females with a mean age of 10. 06 years. Two measures of self-

35

36

concept were administered, and the teacher of each child was asked

to complete a behavior rating on each child assigned to her.

The differences between means were tested for significance.

The differences between means of the two groups on both the pictor-

ial scale and the Piers-Harris scale were not significant at the . 05

level. Significant differences were found, however, on factors which

the test authors felt comprised the self-concept. The factors relat-

ing to physical size and attributes on both scales showed significant

differences, with hearing-impaired children demonstrating a more

positive concept. The difference between the means of the teacher

ratings was not significant. This finding is contrary to findings by

Stott (2) that there is a pronounced tendency for handicapped

children to exhibit more behavioral disturbances than do normal

children. He shows an increase in mean Bristol scores as the num-

ber of impairments from which a child suffers increases.

The correlation between the two self-concept scales was

positive, but extremely low. It was suggested that the two scales

are measuring different constructs or, at the most, different aspects

of the same construct. The correlations between the two self-

concept scales and the teacher ratings were negative and low. The

low, negative relationship between self-concept and teacher ratings

is in contrast to findings by Ringness (1).

37

Conclusions

Two major conclusions were reached based on the results

of this study. It was concluded that there is no difference between

the self-concept of the hearing-impaired child and the self-concept

of the normal hearing child. Although there were significant differ-

ences between the two groups on several factors which comprise the

self-concept, there were no differences between the total self-

concept of the two groups. This conclusion suggests some support

for theories that maintain hearing-impaired children develop much as

do normal hearing children. Although the results cannot be considered

conclusive, some indication for the support of such theories, parti-

cularly in the area of the self-concept, is given.

Secondly, it was concluded that the instruments currently

available for measuring self-concept are poor and inadequate. It

was indicated that the two instruments employed in this study are

not measuring the same construct. Yamamoto (3) has indicated

that this has long existed as a problem in studies of the self-concept.

Implications

The major implication from this study is the need for the

development of better measuring devices for self-concept. Consen-

sus as to definition and what aspects compose the self-concept

38

are important first steps in the development of an adequate

measure.

An additional implication is the need for further research

on the self-concept of the hearing-impaired child. Additional ques-

tions were raised by the investigation, particularly concerning the

interaction of the child's perception of physical size and attributes as

compared to his real or actual physical size. Further research on

the development of the hearing-impaired child in general is indicated.

A better understanding of how the hearing-impaired child views him-

self in relation to his deaf and hearing peers should provide insight

that will aid educators and workers with the deaf in planning programs

and activities that enhance the overall development of the hearing-

impaired child.

CHA PTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ringness, Thomas A. , "Self -Concept of Children of Low,Average, and High Intelligence, The Psychology of theElementary School Child, edited by Alfred R. Binter andSherman H. Frey, Chicago, Rand McNally & Company,1973.

2. Stott, D. H., Manual Bristol Social Adjustment Guides, SanDiego, Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970.

3. Yamamoto, Kaoru, editor, The Child and His Image, SelfConcept in the Early Years, Boston, Houghton MifflinC ompany, 1972.

39

BIB LIOGRA PHY

Books

Brunschwig, Lily, A Study ofSome Personality Aspects of Deaf

Children, New York, Teachers College Press, Columbia

University, 1936.

Eisens on, Jon, J. Jeffery Auer, and John V. Irwin, The Psychologyof Communication, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts,1963.

Furth, Hans G., Deafness and Learning, A Psychosocial Approach,

Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publishing Company,

Inc., 1973.

, Thinking without Language, Psychological

Implications of Deafness, New York, The Free Press,1966.

Gergen, Kenneth J., The Concept of Self, New York, Holt, Rinehartand Winston, Inc., 1971.

Jersild, Arthur T., In Search of Self, An Exploration of the Role of

the School in Promoting Self-Understanding, New York,

Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1952.

Levine, Edna S., The Psychology of Deafness, Techniques ofAppraisal for Rehabilitation, New York, Columbia Univer-sity Press, 1967.

McCandless, Boyd R. , Children and Adolescents, Behavior andDevelopment, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Muller, Douglas G. and Robert Leonetti, Primary Self-ConceptInventory Test Manual, Austin, Texas, Urban Research

Group, 1973.

40

41

Muller, Douglas G. and Robert Leonetti, Primary Self-ConceptInventory Test Manual, Austin, Texas, Learning Concepts,1974.

Myklebust, Helmer R., The Psychologyof Deafness: Sensory

Deprivation, Learning, and Adjustment, New York, Grune

& Stratton, 1966.

Piers, Ellen V. and Dale B. Harris, Manual for the Piers -Harris

Children's Self-Concept Scale (TheWay I Feel about

Myself), Nashville, Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969.

Ringness, Thomas A., "Self-Concept of Children of Low, Average,and High Intelligence, " The Psychology _of the Elementary

School Child, edited by Alfred R. Binter and Sherman H.Frey, Chicago, Rand McNally & Company, 1973.

Schlesinger, Hilde S. and Kathryn P. Meadow, Sound and Sign,

Childhood Deafness and Mental Health, Los Angeles,

University of California Press, 1973.

Stott, D. H. , Manual Bristol Social A djustment Guides, San Diego,

Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970.

Wylie, Ruth C., 'The Self Concept, A Critical Survey of Pertinent

Research Literature, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of

Nebraska Press, 1961.

Yamamoto, Kaoru, editor, The Child and His Image, Self Concept

in the Early Years, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company,1972.

Articles

Baron, Reuben M., Alan R. Bass, and Peter M. Vietze, "Type and

Frequency of Praise as Determinants of Favorability ofSelf-Image: An Experiment in a Field Setting, " Journal of

Personality, XXXIX (December, 1971), 500-510.

Craig, Helen B., "A Sociometric Investigation of the Self-Concept ofthe Deaf Child,1" American Annals of the Deaf, CX (1965),456-478.

42

Jones, Stephen C., "Self and Interpersonal Evaluations: Esteem

Theories versus Consistency Theories," PsychologicalBulletin, LXXIX (1973), 185-199.

Kennedy, Ann E. C., "The Effects of Deafness on Personality, ADiscussion Based on the Theoretical Model of Erik Erik-son's Eight Ages of Man," Journal of Rehabilitation of the

Deaf, VI (January, 1973), 22-33.

Levine, Edna S., "Psychological Tests and Practices with the Deaf,"

The Volta Review, LXXIV (May, 1974), 298-319.

Meadow, Kathryn P., "Self -Image, Family Climate, and Deafness,"Social Forces, XLVII (June, 1969), 428-438.

Piers-Ellen V. and Dale B. Harris, "Age and Other Correlates ofSelf-Concept in Children," Journal of Educationallogy, LV (April, 1964), 91-95.

Rainer, John D. and Kenneth Z. Altshuler, "New Directions in

Psychiatry for Deaf People, " Deafness, Yearbook of theProfessional Rehabilitation Workers with the Adult Deaf,

III, 1973,

Soares, Anthony T. and Louise M. Soares, "Self-Perceptions of

Culturally Disadvantaged Children," American Educational

Research Journal, VI (January, 1969), 31-44.

Waterbar, Robert, "Experimental Bases of the Sense of Self,"Journal of Personality, XL (June, 1972), 162-179.

Monographs

Fitts, William H., "The Self Concept and Human Behavior,"

Nashville Mental Health Center Research Bulletin, No. 11965.

"The Self Concept and Behavior: Overview and

Supplement," Dede Wallace Center Monograph, Nashville,

Tennessee, No. 7, 1972.

43

Thompson, Warren, "Correlates of the Self Concept," Dede

Wallace Center Monograph, Nashville, Tennessee, No. 6,1972.

Reports

Texas Education Agency, Administrative Guide and Handbook forSpecial Education, Austin, Texas, State of Texas, 1971.

Publications of Learned Organizations

Barker, Roger G., Beatrice A. Wright, Lee Meyerson, and MollieR. Gonick, Adjustment to Physical Handicap and Illness: ASurvey of the Social Psychology of Physique and Disability,New York, Social Science Research Council, 1953.

Neyhus, A. and Helmer Myklebust, Speechreading Failures in Deaf

Children, Institute for Language Disorders, Northwestern

University, 1969.

Unpublished Materials

Blanton, Richard L. and Jum C. Nunnally, "Language Habits, Cog-nitive Functions, and Self-Attitudes in the Deaf," unpub-lished paper, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt Uni-

versity, Nashville, Tennessee, 1965.

Hughes, Ronald C. , "An Investigation of the Self-Concept of Chil-dren with Low Levels of Intelligence," unpublished mas -ter's thesis, Department of Psychology, North Texas State

University, Denton, Texas, 1970.

Meadow, Kathryn P., "Deafness and Self-Image in Differing SchoolSettings, " unpublished paper, Langley Porter Neuropsy-

chiatric Institute, San Francisco, California, 1971.

Mulholland, Ann M. , "Congruence of the Problems of Deaf Adoles-cents as Perceived by Parents, Teachers, and Selves, "unpublished dissertation, Fordham University, New York,1971.

44

Ries., Peter W. and R'aymond J. Trybus", Data Collection Activitiesof the Annual Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children andYouth for the 1973-74 School Year, " unpublished paper pre-sented to the Central Regional Workshop on AchievementTesting, St. Louis, Missouri, December 15, 1973.