SASL Newsletter - Fall 2019 Issue Issue 15 - Fall 2019 | Page 8

the three proficiency levels.
The two tests described above can be compared in terms of their purpose, procedures, and
scoring. Although the purpose of the two tests are quite different (one measures receptive language
and the other measures expressive language), they are complementary in that they assess similar
grammatical structures for both comprehension and production. They both provide global measures,
rather than specific diagnostic information, and when used together can provide a good overview of a
child’s ASL abilities. The test procedures differ significantly, in that the ASL-RST is video-based
(allows for a consistent and standardized presentation of test items), and the ASL-PA involves live
interaction, which may result in a more natural conversation, but can be challenging for the coding
procedure.
The scoring procedures also differ in that the ASL-RST is objective (responses are marked as
“correct” or “incorrect” and raw numerical score is tallied and converted to a standard score), and the
ASL-PA involves a more subjective interpretation of the scoring criteria. Assessors using the ASL-PA
must be knowledgeable of ASL linguistics and specifically trained in the identification of target
features. The results for the ASL-RST are reported as a standard score which allows for comparison
to other children at the same age and provides information about the child’s developmental level of
ASL comprehension. Whereas, the ASL-PA proficiency levels do not allow for a specific age
comparison. Both tests require further research to develop normative data. Specifically, more data on
younger children (aged 3 and 4 years) are needed for the ASL-RST, as the variable development at
these ages results in very broad norms. The ASL-PA database could be extended to a larger sample
with a broader age range to cross-validate the cut-off scores for the proficiency levels and provide
information about acquisition patterns.
ASL assessment should be comprehensive and address a range of language features (i.e.,
phonology, vocabulary, morphology, syntax), as well as the use of language in various contexts (i.e.,
narrative, expository, academic, conversational). Effective ASL assessment can be accomplished
through both formal and informal measures as long as they accurately identify language strengths and
difficulties (i.e., provide diagnostic information). While research in ASL delay and disorders is relatively
recent in comparison to spoken language, the development of tools, such as the ASL-RST and ASL-
PA help guide teaching to improve the language and literacy abilities of deaf students.
References
Enns, C. J., Zimmer, K., Boudreault, P., Rabu, S., & Broszeit, C. (2013). American Sign Language: Receptive
skills test. Winnipeg, MB: Northern Signs Research.
Herman, R., Holmes, S., & Woll, B. (1999). Assessing BSL development: Receptive skills test. Coleford, UK:
Forest Bookshop.
Hoffmeister, R. J., Kuntze, M., & Fish, S. (2013). Assessing American Sign Language. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.),
The companion to language assessment (Vol. 4; pp. 1733-1747). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Maller, S. J., Singleton, J. L., Supalla, S. J., & Wix, T. (1999). The development and psychometric properties of
the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 4(4), 249-269.
Owens, R. E. (2016). Language development: An introduction, 9 th edition. London, UK: Pearson.
Woll, B. (2016). Assessing sign language acquisition. Paper presented at the meeting of Assessment of
Multimodal Multilingual Outcomes in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. Stockholm, Sweden.
The Power of ASL
8
Fall 2019 – Issue 15