PsychologicalReports, 1990, 66, 1203-1206. @ Psychological Reports 1990
CREATIVE THINKING IN MENTALLY RETARDED DEAF ADOLESCENTS ' ROGER A. JOHNSON
Old Dominion University Summary.-30 mentally retarded deaf adolescents were matched with 30 mentally retarded hearing adolescents to evaluate (a) differences in creative thinking as a h n c tion of hearing status, (b) the effect of severity of mental retardation on hearing status, and (c) interaction between hearing status and intelligence. A multivariate factorial analysis of variance indicated that the mentally retarded deaf adolescents differed significantly from hearing adolescents on Fluency and Originality. The deaf youth scored higher on Fluency while the hearing scored higher on Originality. No other effects in the analysis reached significance.
Only a few studies have examined the performance of mentally retarded or deaf individuals on measures of creative thinking. Uno, Gargiulo, Sears, Mauter, and Rowe (1977) found that moderately retarded individuals were not lacking in the capacity for creative thinking. Likewise, Kaltsounis (1970a, 1970b), Johnson (1977), Silver (1977), and Marschark and Clark (1987) reported that being deaf had no adverse effect upon creative thinking skills. All of the studies cited above used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974). There is a gap in knowledge regarding the performance of adolescents who are both mentally retarded and deaf. There is a need to assess whether the development of creative thinking skills is limited among individuals who have two debilitating conditions. The major purpose of this study was to examine whether mentally retarded deaf adolescents were capable of the same level of creative thinlung as mentally retarded hearing adolescents. Two ancillary purposes were to investigate whether the severity of mental retardation affected creative thinking scores and whether hearing status interacted with intelligence. METHOD Subjects
The first of two groups of subjects consisted of 30 mentally retarded deaf adolescents (22 boys and 8 girls) enrolled in a state residential school for deaf children. These deaf adolescents ranged in age from 11 to 19 yr. (M CA = 15 yr.), and had IQs ranging from 51 to 79 on the initial Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the initial Wechsler Adult Intelligence
'Address requests For re tints to R. A. Johnson, Ph.D., Darden College of Education, m Instruction, Norfolk, VA 23529-0161. Department of ~ d u c a t i o n 8 ~ u r r i c u l uand
1204
R. A. JOHNSON
Scale (M IQ = 69). They came from families with incomes in the middle to low range, were deaf at birth or before the age of one year, and had been classified as severely to profoundly deaf, i.e., they did not benefit from hearing aids. The second group of subjects were 30 mentally retarded hearing adolescents (21 boys and 9 girls) drawn from public schools on the basis of availability. The hearing adolescents ranged in age from 11 to 19 yr. (M CA = 15 yr.) and had IQs ranging from 50 to 78 on the initial Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the initial Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (M I Q = 68). They, too, came from f a d e s with incomes in the middle to low range.
Design, Test Administration and Scoring Deaf and hearing adolescents were matched person-to-person on IQ (plus or minus two points) and age (plus or minus three years). Multivariate analysis of variance was applied to the data to examine whether status of hearing (deaf or hearing) and intelligence (mild or moderate retardation) and/or their interaction gave significant effects on the four measures of creative thinking. A 2 x 2 factorial analysis of variance was applied, with 15 subjects in each of the four cells. The dependent variables were scores on Fluency, Flexibility, Originahty, and Elaboration scales of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural Form B. Data for deaf adolescents were collected by the investigator and a skilled examiner chosen for her abittry to communicate with the deaf adolescents. The skilled examiner had been trained in total communication, a method of communicating with deaf individuals involving maximum sensory input, i.e., lip reading, natural gestures, sign language, finger spelling, speaking in a normal voice, and writing words on a blackboard. Data from the hearing adolescents were collected by the investigator and a graduate student who had been trained specifically for this task. Standardized testing protocols were carefully followed. The test administrators, with the exception of the researcher, were uninformed as to the hypothesis of the study. All of the adolescents were tested individually. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were scored by professionally trained scorers who lacked information with regard to group membership and purposes of the study. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION When a multivariate analysis of variance using the Wilks Lambda criterion was conducted with the two criterion groups for the four creativity variables, the multivariate F ratio indicated that the deaf and hearing groups differed significantly on one or more of the four Torrance subtests (F = 5.42, p < ,001). The mentally retarded deaf adolescents scored significantly higher than the mentally retarded hearing adolescents on the Fluency creativity sub-
CREATIVE THINKING: RETARDED DEAF
1205
test (Deaf: M = 15.97, SD = 6.82; Hearing: M = 12.40, SD = 3.71) while the reverse occurred on the Originality creativity subtest (Deaf: M = 15.73, SD = 11.17; Hearing: M = 23.80, SD = 15.17). There were no significant differences between the mentally retarded deaf and the mentally retarded hearing on the Flexibility subtest (Deaf: M = 9.03, SD = 4.57; Hearing: M = 9.93, SD = 2.77) or on the Elaboration subtest (Deaf: M = 50.50, SD = 33.12; Hearing: M = 47.23, SD = 19.65). The interaction of intelligence and hearing status was not significant on the four subtests. The present findings that mentally retarded deaf adolescents scored significantly higher on the Fluency subtest is consistent with work by Kaltsounis (1970a, 1970b), Johnson (1977), Silver (1977), and Marschark and Clark (1987), who reported that deaf pupils were at least as creative as their hearing peers when evaluated with total communication and/or sign language rather than in English. Silver (1977, p. 349) postulates that "Deaf children do not in fact lag behind when we bypass verbal expression and use nonverbal instruments to assess these capabdities." According to Rose, Waldon, and Kolomyjec (1983), total communication may allow the deaf person to respond creatively without feeling anxious or fearful. Fluency, the total number of relevant responses, is a very important measure of creative thinking. The more relevant responses provided per unit time, the higher probability that a unique response will occur. Educators should capitalize on this fluency strength of deaf pupils by providing visual stimulation rather than engaging in verbal stimulation. Conversely, the mentally retarded deaf adolescents in the present study scored significantly lower on the Originality subtest than did their mentally retarded hearing peers. I t is possible that language retardation of deaf pupils may exert more influence on the originality than on the fluency component of creativity. Relative to their hearing peers, deaf children may lack the diversity of experiences necessary for optimal development of original thought. Since the language training for deaf children is more literal and concrete in syntax and vocabulary than that of their hearing peers (Marschark & West, 1986), it would be expected that less diversity in their language experience would result in less original responses. Only deaf children born to deaf parents are likely to be encouraged to use nodteral language. The lack of deaf parents to help children interact with the environment rather than being institutionalized per se may be the key distinguishing feature between mentally retarded deaf and mentally retarded hearing adolescents (Marschark & Clark, 1987). Although theoretical considerations suggest that the abstract thinking deficits exhibited by mentally retarded persons may interfere with their creative thinking skills (Uno, et al., 1977), the findings of the present study do not support this premise. The creative thinking scores of moderately retarded
1206
R. A. JOHNSON
deaf and hearing adolescents (IQs of 50 to 67) did not differ from their slightly retarded deaf and hearing peers (IQs of 69 to 79). Further research should be directed toward assessing whether extreme abstract thinking deficits e h b i t e d by mentally retarded subjects may interfere with their creative thinking. REFERENCES JOHNSON,R. A. (1977) Creative thinking in the absence of language: deaf versus hearing adolescents. Child Study Jorrral, 7, 49-55. KALTSOUNIS,B. (1970a) Comparative study of creativity in deaf and hearing children. Child Study Jotrrnal, 1, 11-19. KALTSOCMIS, B. (1970b) Differences in verbal creative thinking abhties between deaf and hearing children. Psychological Reports, 26, 727-733. MARSCHARK, M., & CLARK,D. (1987) Linguistic and nonlinguiscic creativity of deaf children. Deuelopmental Review, 7, 22-38. ~ ~ I S C H A M., R K& , WEST, S. A. (1985) Creative language abilities of deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 73-78. ROSE, S., WMDRON,M., & KOLOMYJEC,W. (1983) Measuring creativity chrough computer graphics of hearing impaired children. Perceptzral and Motor Skills, 57, 943-950. SILVER,R. A. (1977) The question of imagination, originality, nnd abstract thinking of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 122, 349-354. TORRANCE, E. P. (1974) Torrance Tests of Creatiue Thinking. Lexington, M A : Ginn. UNO,T., GARILJLO,R., SEARS,J., W U T E R ,M., & ROWE,J. (1977) Creativity in dwelopmentally disabled adolescents. Psychological Reporh, 40, 1207-1212.
Accepted May 21, 1990.
CREATIVE THINKING IN MENTALLY RETARDED DEAF ADOLESCENTS ' ROGER A. JOHNSON
Old Dominion University Summary.-30 mentally retarded deaf adolescents were matched with 30 mentally retarded hearing adolescents to evaluate (a) differences in creative thinking as a h n c tion of hearing status, (b) the effect of severity of mental retardation on hearing status, and (c) interaction between hearing status and intelligence. A multivariate factorial analysis of variance indicated that the mentally retarded deaf adolescents differed significantly from hearing adolescents on Fluency and Originality. The deaf youth scored higher on Fluency while the hearing scored higher on Originality. No other effects in the analysis reached significance.
Only a few studies have examined the performance of mentally retarded or deaf individuals on measures of creative thinking. Uno, Gargiulo, Sears, Mauter, and Rowe (1977) found that moderately retarded individuals were not lacking in the capacity for creative thinking. Likewise, Kaltsounis (1970a, 1970b), Johnson (1977), Silver (1977), and Marschark and Clark (1987) reported that being deaf had no adverse effect upon creative thinking skills. All of the studies cited above used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974). There is a gap in knowledge regarding the performance of adolescents who are both mentally retarded and deaf. There is a need to assess whether the development of creative thinking skills is limited among individuals who have two debilitating conditions. The major purpose of this study was to examine whether mentally retarded deaf adolescents were capable of the same level of creative thinlung as mentally retarded hearing adolescents. Two ancillary purposes were to investigate whether the severity of mental retardation affected creative thinking scores and whether hearing status interacted with intelligence. METHOD Subjects
The first of two groups of subjects consisted of 30 mentally retarded deaf adolescents (22 boys and 8 girls) enrolled in a state residential school for deaf children. These deaf adolescents ranged in age from 11 to 19 yr. (M CA = 15 yr.), and had IQs ranging from 51 to 79 on the initial Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the initial Wechsler Adult Intelligence
'Address requests For re tints to R. A. Johnson, Ph.D., Darden College of Education, m Instruction, Norfolk, VA 23529-0161. Department of ~ d u c a t i o n 8 ~ u r r i c u l uand
1204
R. A. JOHNSON
Scale (M IQ = 69). They came from families with incomes in the middle to low range, were deaf at birth or before the age of one year, and had been classified as severely to profoundly deaf, i.e., they did not benefit from hearing aids. The second group of subjects were 30 mentally retarded hearing adolescents (21 boys and 9 girls) drawn from public schools on the basis of availability. The hearing adolescents ranged in age from 11 to 19 yr. (M CA = 15 yr.) and had IQs ranging from 50 to 78 on the initial Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the initial Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (M I Q = 68). They, too, came from f a d e s with incomes in the middle to low range.
Design, Test Administration and Scoring Deaf and hearing adolescents were matched person-to-person on IQ (plus or minus two points) and age (plus or minus three years). Multivariate analysis of variance was applied to the data to examine whether status of hearing (deaf or hearing) and intelligence (mild or moderate retardation) and/or their interaction gave significant effects on the four measures of creative thinking. A 2 x 2 factorial analysis of variance was applied, with 15 subjects in each of the four cells. The dependent variables were scores on Fluency, Flexibility, Originahty, and Elaboration scales of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural Form B. Data for deaf adolescents were collected by the investigator and a skilled examiner chosen for her abittry to communicate with the deaf adolescents. The skilled examiner had been trained in total communication, a method of communicating with deaf individuals involving maximum sensory input, i.e., lip reading, natural gestures, sign language, finger spelling, speaking in a normal voice, and writing words on a blackboard. Data from the hearing adolescents were collected by the investigator and a graduate student who had been trained specifically for this task. Standardized testing protocols were carefully followed. The test administrators, with the exception of the researcher, were uninformed as to the hypothesis of the study. All of the adolescents were tested individually. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were scored by professionally trained scorers who lacked information with regard to group membership and purposes of the study. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION When a multivariate analysis of variance using the Wilks Lambda criterion was conducted with the two criterion groups for the four creativity variables, the multivariate F ratio indicated that the deaf and hearing groups differed significantly on one or more of the four Torrance subtests (F = 5.42, p < ,001). The mentally retarded deaf adolescents scored significantly higher than the mentally retarded hearing adolescents on the Fluency creativity sub-
CREATIVE THINKING: RETARDED DEAF
1205
test (Deaf: M = 15.97, SD = 6.82; Hearing: M = 12.40, SD = 3.71) while the reverse occurred on the Originality creativity subtest (Deaf: M = 15.73, SD = 11.17; Hearing: M = 23.80, SD = 15.17). There were no significant differences between the mentally retarded deaf and the mentally retarded hearing on the Flexibility subtest (Deaf: M = 9.03, SD = 4.57; Hearing: M = 9.93, SD = 2.77) or on the Elaboration subtest (Deaf: M = 50.50, SD = 33.12; Hearing: M = 47.23, SD = 19.65). The interaction of intelligence and hearing status was not significant on the four subtests. The present findings that mentally retarded deaf adolescents scored significantly higher on the Fluency subtest is consistent with work by Kaltsounis (1970a, 1970b), Johnson (1977), Silver (1977), and Marschark and Clark (1987), who reported that deaf pupils were at least as creative as their hearing peers when evaluated with total communication and/or sign language rather than in English. Silver (1977, p. 349) postulates that "Deaf children do not in fact lag behind when we bypass verbal expression and use nonverbal instruments to assess these capabdities." According to Rose, Waldon, and Kolomyjec (1983), total communication may allow the deaf person to respond creatively without feeling anxious or fearful. Fluency, the total number of relevant responses, is a very important measure of creative thinking. The more relevant responses provided per unit time, the higher probability that a unique response will occur. Educators should capitalize on this fluency strength of deaf pupils by providing visual stimulation rather than engaging in verbal stimulation. Conversely, the mentally retarded deaf adolescents in the present study scored significantly lower on the Originality subtest than did their mentally retarded hearing peers. I t is possible that language retardation of deaf pupils may exert more influence on the originality than on the fluency component of creativity. Relative to their hearing peers, deaf children may lack the diversity of experiences necessary for optimal development of original thought. Since the language training for deaf children is more literal and concrete in syntax and vocabulary than that of their hearing peers (Marschark & West, 1986), it would be expected that less diversity in their language experience would result in less original responses. Only deaf children born to deaf parents are likely to be encouraged to use nodteral language. The lack of deaf parents to help children interact with the environment rather than being institutionalized per se may be the key distinguishing feature between mentally retarded deaf and mentally retarded hearing adolescents (Marschark & Clark, 1987). Although theoretical considerations suggest that the abstract thinking deficits exhibited by mentally retarded persons may interfere with their creative thinking skills (Uno, et al., 1977), the findings of the present study do not support this premise. The creative thinking scores of moderately retarded
1206
R. A. JOHNSON
deaf and hearing adolescents (IQs of 50 to 67) did not differ from their slightly retarded deaf and hearing peers (IQs of 69 to 79). Further research should be directed toward assessing whether extreme abstract thinking deficits e h b i t e d by mentally retarded subjects may interfere with their creative thinking. REFERENCES JOHNSON,R. A. (1977) Creative thinking in the absence of language: deaf versus hearing adolescents. Child Study Jorrral, 7, 49-55. KALTSOUNIS,B. (1970a) Comparative study of creativity in deaf and hearing children. Child Study Jotrrnal, 1, 11-19. KALTSOCMIS, B. (1970b) Differences in verbal creative thinking abhties between deaf and hearing children. Psychological Reports, 26, 727-733. MARSCHARK, M., & CLARK,D. (1987) Linguistic and nonlinguiscic creativity of deaf children. Deuelopmental Review, 7, 22-38. ~ ~ I S C H A M., R K& , WEST, S. A. (1985) Creative language abilities of deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 73-78. ROSE, S., WMDRON,M., & KOLOMYJEC,W. (1983) Measuring creativity chrough computer graphics of hearing impaired children. Perceptzral and Motor Skills, 57, 943-950. SILVER,R. A. (1977) The question of imagination, originality, nnd abstract thinking of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 122, 349-354. TORRANCE, E. P. (1974) Torrance Tests of Creatiue Thinking. Lexington, M A : Ginn. UNO,T., GARILJLO,R., SEARS,J., W U T E R ,M., & ROWE,J. (1977) Creativity in dwelopmentally disabled adolescents. Psychological Reporh, 40, 1207-1212.
Accepted May 21, 1990.
