Influence and Adaptability in Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children Beth Menees Rienzi American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 135, Number 5, December 1990, pp. 402-408 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0463
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385061/summary
Access provided by Australian National University (24 Sep 2018 23:34 GMT)
Influence and Adaptability in Families With Deaf Parents
and Hearing Children Beth Menees Rienzi
This study assessed the influence of individual family members in functional families, primarily to determine whether hearing children of deaf parents have
more influence than do hearing children of hearing parents. Eight families with deaf parents and a hearing child and eight all hearing families were videotaped
while planning a family meal together. It was found that deaf-parented families share many traits with hearing families. However, there were some differences. The hearing children of deaf
parents had a greater number and percentage of their ideas accepted than did the hearing children of hearing parents. Differences were also noted between the deaf fathers and the hearing fathers. The deaf-parented families were more adaptable, as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The observed difference in child influence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Deafness of one family member, in an auditory dependent environment, may
require a more flexible family power structure. Professionals assessing deafparented families should be sensitive to the special adaptive needs required for healthy functioning of the family.
The deafness of any family member affects the interpersonal relationships within the entire family (Frank, 1979; Ogden & Lipsett, 1982). The issues that arise when a hearing family has a deaf
ented family (Crittenden & Bonvillian, 1984). We view the
deaf-parented family as a potentially workable structure that develops unique characteristics based on reality demands. This study evaluates the adaptability of functional deaf-parented families by comparing them with hearing families.
child have been widely studied, but the issues that arise
when a hearing child has deaf parents have received little attention. What limited clinical literature on deaf parents there is stresses pathological adjustments (Dent, 1982;
Families: Power and Communication
Frank, 1979; Halbreich, 1979; Sanders, 1984). With few
exceptions, published studies have not discussed the adaptive, functional interaction patterns in the deaf-par-
Many psychologists conclude that the family power hierarchy must be clearly defined for a family to function adequately (Corsini & Wedding, 1989), but that the hierar-
The author is assistant professor of psychology at California State University, Bakersfield.
chy can be defined in a variety of ways, from democratic to dictatorial. Many types of family structure provide
402
AAD
Vol. 135, No. 5
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
ceptions of their parents (Arlow, 1976; Frank, 1979),
stability and continuity, but flexibility is also required to allow families to adapt (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). Families must be capable of adapting to unexpected crises as well as to developmental changes that are expected as the family members age. The deafness of any family member requires considerable adaptation on the part of the family, but in the deaf-parented family, defining the power hierarchy is even more complicated (Buck, 1982). The family power structure is greatly influenced by the flow of information. The direction, amount, and nature of the information flow define each family member's relative place in the power hierarchy (McDonald, 1980). The flow of information in the hearing family is potentially open both within the family system and outside the family system to the larger community. But the flow of information changes drastically with the
undermining parental authority.
Clinical reports of troubled deaf-parented families reveal that distortions in the power hierarchy are a major factor in the family pathology. Therapeutic interventions
that clarify the power structure of deaf-parented families improve family functioning substantially (Glickman, 1983; Robinson & Weathers, 1974; Shapiro & Harris, 1976). These successes suggest that deaf-parented families can profit from education, prevention, and therapeutic intervention. However intervention models based on the structure of
hearing-parented families may not be fully applicable to deaf-parented families.
The Study This study attempts to clarify the power structure of the functional deaf-parented family and to compare the adaptability of functional deaf-parented families with hearing children and the adaptability of hearing-parented families with hearing children. The study employed six overt measures to assess the influence of the child on family decision-making during a videotaped task that required family consensus. We hypothesized that the hearing child of deaf parents has greater influence than the hearing child of hearing parents, and that this would be indicated by a greater number and proportion of the ideas of the children of deaf parents being accepted by the family as the final choice. If this first hypothesis was supported, additional tests would identify behavioral differences that might account for differences in influence by comparing the children and parents on the number of speeches made, questions asked, ideas generated, and disagreements expressed. An objective self-administered test, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), was used to assess family adaptability. Olson, Bell, and Portner (1978) designed this scale to tap seven concepts related to adaptability: assertiveness, control (leadership), discipline, negotiation, roles, rules, and system feedback. FACES was developed using only hearing families, thus scores may have different interpretations for deaf-parented families. Extreme positions on this scale for hearing families are seen as pathological or pathogenic. The midpoints on the continuum represent an adaptive family with egalitarian leadership. Adaptive families are those that negotiate successfully and have good problem-solving skills. They demonstrate a mutually assertive style that prepares the children for situations outside the family. The family adaptability dimension of FACES assesses the ability of a family to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stresses (Lee, 1988). We expected that functional deaf-parented families would have higher family adaptability scores on FACES than hearing-parented families.
addition of a deaf member (Greenberg, 1980; Sanders, 1984; Wedell-Monnig & Lumley, 1980). And it can be severely restricted when families with deaf and hearing members do not have a mutual communication system. Studies of hearing families with one deaf child have provided numerous examples of the potentially devastating effects of a sensory communication system that is unavailable to some family members. Communication can also be disrupted in deaf-parented families, but in these families the hearing children often learn to understand and communicate fluently in both
auditory and visual language systems. The deaf parents have a genuine value of and need for the child's communicative capability in auditory English, and this allows the child to contribute to the family in a meaningful and concrete way (Blaskey, 1984; Fant & Schuchman, 1974; Maestas Y Moores, 1980; Marshall, 1979). The more adaptive deaf parents relinquish some power to the children in situations in which the children have greater skills, such as when auditory reception is necessary. This flexibility may give these families more practice and skill in changing their power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational demands than a family with all hearing members. And this flexibility should enhance the family's efficiency. The flow of information may result in the children having a greater influence on family decisions than the children in hearing families have, but it is clear that deaf-parented families can be functional units.
Nevertheless, less adaptive deaf parents may relinquish power in an indiscriminate manner and thus overwhelm
their hearing children. Hearing children sometimes become the primary facilitators and interpreters for their
parents (Bunde, 1979), but deaf parents with little confidence may also give up decision-making responsibilities to their hearing children. The parents may assume that their
hearing children understand more than they themselves do, because the children hear more (Bunde, 1979). The negative attitudes of outsiders about deafness may also
affect the parents' self-perceptions and the children's perVol. 135, No. 5
AAD
403
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
Method
Procedure
The video recording sessions took place in the family homes at a time convenient for the family within a threemonth period. Two researchers, one male and one female, took the equipment to the home. The equipment consisted of a video camera with portable energy source, a videotape
Subjects One group consisted of eight families with hearing children and deaf parents, and the second group consisted of eight families with all hearing members. The two groups were matched on the sex, age, and grade of the oldest child. Four male and four female children, all first-born, were included in each group. The children of the deaf parents
player (for the instruction tape), one 36-inch square card table, a microphone on a floor stand, two quartz lights on floor stands, and a portable color television set with a 10inch screen.
ranged in age from 6 years and 9 months to 12 years and
A family triad consisting of the mother, the father, and
9 months. The children of the hearing parents ranged in age from 7 years and 8 months to 12 years and 2 months. All the deaf parents were prelingually deaf and had grown up as deaf children of hearing parents. Their hearing impairments were severe enough that the use of an auditory telephone was not possible. All the deaf parents used sign language as their primary and preferred mode of
the oldest child was instructed to sit at the card table so that the video camera could view all three members of the
family simultaneously, with the child in the middle position facing the camera. The video recorded instructions were given simultaneously in sign language and spoken English. Instructions described a family dinner planning task, adapted from earlier research (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978).
communication. Their children were all hearing and skilled
The family was asked to plan a meal together, one that all would enjoy and agree to. They were instructed to choose one meat, two vegetables, one dessert, and one drink. Following the video recording session, the mother and father were given FACES to complete separately. The average of these two scores was used as the adaptability score for the family.
in both spoken English and sign language. All the family members were Caucasian, born in the United States, and lived in single family homes. They met the criteria for a functional family unit, listed below. • No family disruption by divorce or desertion. •. No police interference in the family, with the exception of traffic violations and parking tickets, for the past six months.
Measures
• No serious school deportment problems by children in the family. No child had been expelled, suspended, or placed on academic probation within the last academic
Six objective measures were coded to describe the family dynamics during the dinner planning task. They are discussed below.
semester.
Influence was defined as an impact on the outcome of the family problem-solving task. Two outcome variables
• No contact with mental health services as patients within the past year for all family members. • AU members of the family in good physical health as determined by self-reports.
were coded. The first was the number of ideas on the
families' final menu that each member originated. Since five menu items were to be determined, scores ranged from zero to five. The second outcome coded was the percentage of ideas generated by each person that was finally accepted as final choices on the menu. This percentage controlled for variation in levels of participation. (For
• All children were hearing.
• At least one parent was employed. Sign language was defined to include any of the manual sign languages. Deaf parents also used some supplemental communication aids such as lip reading, vocalization, amplification of residual hearing, and note writing. Hearing is defined as the absence of a hearing impairment or sufficient hearing that amplification is not needed for normal spoken communication.
example, if someone recommended two items and one of the items was in the final menu, the person would have a score of one for number of ideas accepted and a percentage score of 50%.)
Also coded for each family member were the number of
All the families were reached through the school system,
complete speeches (complete thoughts communicated
the California State Department of Rehabilitation, and deaf
without interruption) made divided by the total number of
clubs and referral services in various communities in
speeches made by all family members of the triad, the number of questions asked divided by the number of questions asked by all members of the triad, the number of
California. They were randomly selected from available volunteer subjects who met the criteria. Family matching was done from demographic information before the researcher saw the family in person. All the subjects resided
times disagreement was expressed with other members of the triad, and the number of ideas contributed during the
in the state of California in a total of 11 communities in
task.
seven counties. After all the necessary data were collected, each family was sent a thank-you letter and a check for $15 as a token of appreciation for their participation.
The adaptability scale of FACES was used to assess family adaptability. Total adaptability scores are divided into four major categories. More than one standard devia-
404
AAD
Vol. 135, No. 5
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
tion above the mean is considered chaotic. From the mean to one standard deviation above the mean is considered
of speeches, questioning of others, expression of disagree-
flexible. From the mean to one standard deviation below
To explore the family dynamics more fully, 24 r-tests were conducted comparing the matched pairs of mothers, matched pairs of fathers, and mother-father pairs within the deaf-parented and hearing families on each of the six
ments, or generation of ideas.
the mean is considered structured, and more than one
standard deviation below the mean is considered rigid. In other words, higher scores demonstrate flexibility, and lower scores show rigidity. The internal consistency reliability of this subscale is .75.
coded variables. An alpha level of .01 was used to reduce
the risk of Type I error. One test was significant at the .005 level. Deaf fathers and hearing fathers were significantly different on number of ideas accepted (t (J) = 3.7, p< .005). Deaf fathers had fewer of their ideas accepted by the family
Data Coding
than hearing fathers.
A prestudy was used to develop a workable scoring system and to train raters to .80 reliability on all rating
The FACES adaptability scores were significantly higher for the deaf-parented families than the hearing families, t(7) = 6.7, p < .005. Further analyses of the seven FACES subscales produced three significant differences between the deaf-parented and hearing families on assertiveness It (7) = 3.6, p < .0051, discipline It(J) = 4.9, p < .0051, and negotiation It (7) = 3.2, p < .010]. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics. The control, roles, rules, and system
scales.
Scripts were obtained by having three people independently translate family interactions. Two professional sign language interpreters were added for translation in the deaf-parented families. Translation discrepancies were negotiated until all five translators agreed. The rated variables were scored by two raters who viewed the videotapes while having the typed script available to them at all times. No restrictions were placed
feedback subscales did not show significant differences at the .01 level.
on the number of times the raters could view an interaction
before recording their score, and raters frequently re-
Discussion
wound to examine the interactions. Raters had no direct
The child's influence was significantly greater in the
contact with translators during the project. All the translators and raters had previous knowledge of sign language.
deaf-parented families than in the hearing-parented families, yet the two groups did not differ in the number of speeches completed, the number of ideas they proposed,
Results
the number of questions they asked, or their assertiveness
in expressing disagreement. The observed differences
Six matched sample r-tests compared the children of deaf parents to the children of hearing parents on the six objective measures. Two of these tests were significant at
cannot be accounted for by examining the children's behavior. The videotaped family interactions suggest that
the deaf parents granted their children greater influence. The higher level of influence of the children of deaf parents appears to be the result of differences observed in
the .05 level.
The children of deaf parents had significantly more influence than the children of hearing parents on both number of ideas accepted (t (J) = 2.7, p < .025) and
the behavior of the fathers. Hearing fathers had more of
percentage of ideas accepted (r(7) = 2.2, p < .05). Table 1
their ideas accepted by the family than deaf fathers,
presents the descriptive statistics. No significant differences were found between the two groups of children on number
whereas no significant differences were found between
Table 1. Ideas Accepted In Deaf-parented and Hearing
Table 2. FACES Scores for Deaf-parented and Hearing
deaf and hearing mothers. The average number of ideas
Families
Families
Deaf-parented Group
M
SD
Hearing M
Deaf-parented
SD
Group Adaptability Score
Children
Number of ideas accepted 3.6* % of ideas accepted
.8*
1.3
2.1
.1
.5
.8 .3
Subscale Score Assertiveness
Fathers
Number of ideas accepted
.5"
.5
1.9
Discipline Negotiation
1.0
*p
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385061/summary
Access provided by Australian National University (24 Sep 2018 23:34 GMT)
Influence and Adaptability in Families With Deaf Parents
and Hearing Children Beth Menees Rienzi
This study assessed the influence of individual family members in functional families, primarily to determine whether hearing children of deaf parents have
more influence than do hearing children of hearing parents. Eight families with deaf parents and a hearing child and eight all hearing families were videotaped
while planning a family meal together. It was found that deaf-parented families share many traits with hearing families. However, there were some differences. The hearing children of deaf
parents had a greater number and percentage of their ideas accepted than did the hearing children of hearing parents. Differences were also noted between the deaf fathers and the hearing fathers. The deaf-parented families were more adaptable, as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The observed difference in child influence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Deafness of one family member, in an auditory dependent environment, may
require a more flexible family power structure. Professionals assessing deafparented families should be sensitive to the special adaptive needs required for healthy functioning of the family.
The deafness of any family member affects the interpersonal relationships within the entire family (Frank, 1979; Ogden & Lipsett, 1982). The issues that arise when a hearing family has a deaf
ented family (Crittenden & Bonvillian, 1984). We view the
deaf-parented family as a potentially workable structure that develops unique characteristics based on reality demands. This study evaluates the adaptability of functional deaf-parented families by comparing them with hearing families.
child have been widely studied, but the issues that arise
when a hearing child has deaf parents have received little attention. What limited clinical literature on deaf parents there is stresses pathological adjustments (Dent, 1982;
Families: Power and Communication
Frank, 1979; Halbreich, 1979; Sanders, 1984). With few
exceptions, published studies have not discussed the adaptive, functional interaction patterns in the deaf-par-
Many psychologists conclude that the family power hierarchy must be clearly defined for a family to function adequately (Corsini & Wedding, 1989), but that the hierar-
The author is assistant professor of psychology at California State University, Bakersfield.
chy can be defined in a variety of ways, from democratic to dictatorial. Many types of family structure provide
402
AAD
Vol. 135, No. 5
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
ceptions of their parents (Arlow, 1976; Frank, 1979),
stability and continuity, but flexibility is also required to allow families to adapt (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). Families must be capable of adapting to unexpected crises as well as to developmental changes that are expected as the family members age. The deafness of any family member requires considerable adaptation on the part of the family, but in the deaf-parented family, defining the power hierarchy is even more complicated (Buck, 1982). The family power structure is greatly influenced by the flow of information. The direction, amount, and nature of the information flow define each family member's relative place in the power hierarchy (McDonald, 1980). The flow of information in the hearing family is potentially open both within the family system and outside the family system to the larger community. But the flow of information changes drastically with the
undermining parental authority.
Clinical reports of troubled deaf-parented families reveal that distortions in the power hierarchy are a major factor in the family pathology. Therapeutic interventions
that clarify the power structure of deaf-parented families improve family functioning substantially (Glickman, 1983; Robinson & Weathers, 1974; Shapiro & Harris, 1976). These successes suggest that deaf-parented families can profit from education, prevention, and therapeutic intervention. However intervention models based on the structure of
hearing-parented families may not be fully applicable to deaf-parented families.
The Study This study attempts to clarify the power structure of the functional deaf-parented family and to compare the adaptability of functional deaf-parented families with hearing children and the adaptability of hearing-parented families with hearing children. The study employed six overt measures to assess the influence of the child on family decision-making during a videotaped task that required family consensus. We hypothesized that the hearing child of deaf parents has greater influence than the hearing child of hearing parents, and that this would be indicated by a greater number and proportion of the ideas of the children of deaf parents being accepted by the family as the final choice. If this first hypothesis was supported, additional tests would identify behavioral differences that might account for differences in influence by comparing the children and parents on the number of speeches made, questions asked, ideas generated, and disagreements expressed. An objective self-administered test, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), was used to assess family adaptability. Olson, Bell, and Portner (1978) designed this scale to tap seven concepts related to adaptability: assertiveness, control (leadership), discipline, negotiation, roles, rules, and system feedback. FACES was developed using only hearing families, thus scores may have different interpretations for deaf-parented families. Extreme positions on this scale for hearing families are seen as pathological or pathogenic. The midpoints on the continuum represent an adaptive family with egalitarian leadership. Adaptive families are those that negotiate successfully and have good problem-solving skills. They demonstrate a mutually assertive style that prepares the children for situations outside the family. The family adaptability dimension of FACES assesses the ability of a family to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stresses (Lee, 1988). We expected that functional deaf-parented families would have higher family adaptability scores on FACES than hearing-parented families.
addition of a deaf member (Greenberg, 1980; Sanders, 1984; Wedell-Monnig & Lumley, 1980). And it can be severely restricted when families with deaf and hearing members do not have a mutual communication system. Studies of hearing families with one deaf child have provided numerous examples of the potentially devastating effects of a sensory communication system that is unavailable to some family members. Communication can also be disrupted in deaf-parented families, but in these families the hearing children often learn to understand and communicate fluently in both
auditory and visual language systems. The deaf parents have a genuine value of and need for the child's communicative capability in auditory English, and this allows the child to contribute to the family in a meaningful and concrete way (Blaskey, 1984; Fant & Schuchman, 1974; Maestas Y Moores, 1980; Marshall, 1979). The more adaptive deaf parents relinquish some power to the children in situations in which the children have greater skills, such as when auditory reception is necessary. This flexibility may give these families more practice and skill in changing their power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational demands than a family with all hearing members. And this flexibility should enhance the family's efficiency. The flow of information may result in the children having a greater influence on family decisions than the children in hearing families have, but it is clear that deaf-parented families can be functional units.
Nevertheless, less adaptive deaf parents may relinquish power in an indiscriminate manner and thus overwhelm
their hearing children. Hearing children sometimes become the primary facilitators and interpreters for their
parents (Bunde, 1979), but deaf parents with little confidence may also give up decision-making responsibilities to their hearing children. The parents may assume that their
hearing children understand more than they themselves do, because the children hear more (Bunde, 1979). The negative attitudes of outsiders about deafness may also
affect the parents' self-perceptions and the children's perVol. 135, No. 5
AAD
403
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
Method
Procedure
The video recording sessions took place in the family homes at a time convenient for the family within a threemonth period. Two researchers, one male and one female, took the equipment to the home. The equipment consisted of a video camera with portable energy source, a videotape
Subjects One group consisted of eight families with hearing children and deaf parents, and the second group consisted of eight families with all hearing members. The two groups were matched on the sex, age, and grade of the oldest child. Four male and four female children, all first-born, were included in each group. The children of the deaf parents
player (for the instruction tape), one 36-inch square card table, a microphone on a floor stand, two quartz lights on floor stands, and a portable color television set with a 10inch screen.
ranged in age from 6 years and 9 months to 12 years and
A family triad consisting of the mother, the father, and
9 months. The children of the hearing parents ranged in age from 7 years and 8 months to 12 years and 2 months. All the deaf parents were prelingually deaf and had grown up as deaf children of hearing parents. Their hearing impairments were severe enough that the use of an auditory telephone was not possible. All the deaf parents used sign language as their primary and preferred mode of
the oldest child was instructed to sit at the card table so that the video camera could view all three members of the
family simultaneously, with the child in the middle position facing the camera. The video recorded instructions were given simultaneously in sign language and spoken English. Instructions described a family dinner planning task, adapted from earlier research (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978).
communication. Their children were all hearing and skilled
The family was asked to plan a meal together, one that all would enjoy and agree to. They were instructed to choose one meat, two vegetables, one dessert, and one drink. Following the video recording session, the mother and father were given FACES to complete separately. The average of these two scores was used as the adaptability score for the family.
in both spoken English and sign language. All the family members were Caucasian, born in the United States, and lived in single family homes. They met the criteria for a functional family unit, listed below. • No family disruption by divorce or desertion. •. No police interference in the family, with the exception of traffic violations and parking tickets, for the past six months.
Measures
• No serious school deportment problems by children in the family. No child had been expelled, suspended, or placed on academic probation within the last academic
Six objective measures were coded to describe the family dynamics during the dinner planning task. They are discussed below.
semester.
Influence was defined as an impact on the outcome of the family problem-solving task. Two outcome variables
• No contact with mental health services as patients within the past year for all family members. • AU members of the family in good physical health as determined by self-reports.
were coded. The first was the number of ideas on the
families' final menu that each member originated. Since five menu items were to be determined, scores ranged from zero to five. The second outcome coded was the percentage of ideas generated by each person that was finally accepted as final choices on the menu. This percentage controlled for variation in levels of participation. (For
• All children were hearing.
• At least one parent was employed. Sign language was defined to include any of the manual sign languages. Deaf parents also used some supplemental communication aids such as lip reading, vocalization, amplification of residual hearing, and note writing. Hearing is defined as the absence of a hearing impairment or sufficient hearing that amplification is not needed for normal spoken communication.
example, if someone recommended two items and one of the items was in the final menu, the person would have a score of one for number of ideas accepted and a percentage score of 50%.)
Also coded for each family member were the number of
All the families were reached through the school system,
complete speeches (complete thoughts communicated
the California State Department of Rehabilitation, and deaf
without interruption) made divided by the total number of
clubs and referral services in various communities in
speeches made by all family members of the triad, the number of questions asked divided by the number of questions asked by all members of the triad, the number of
California. They were randomly selected from available volunteer subjects who met the criteria. Family matching was done from demographic information before the researcher saw the family in person. All the subjects resided
times disagreement was expressed with other members of the triad, and the number of ideas contributed during the
in the state of California in a total of 11 communities in
task.
seven counties. After all the necessary data were collected, each family was sent a thank-you letter and a check for $15 as a token of appreciation for their participation.
The adaptability scale of FACES was used to assess family adaptability. Total adaptability scores are divided into four major categories. More than one standard devia-
404
AAD
Vol. 135, No. 5
Families With Deaf Parents and Hearing Children
tion above the mean is considered chaotic. From the mean to one standard deviation above the mean is considered
of speeches, questioning of others, expression of disagree-
flexible. From the mean to one standard deviation below
To explore the family dynamics more fully, 24 r-tests were conducted comparing the matched pairs of mothers, matched pairs of fathers, and mother-father pairs within the deaf-parented and hearing families on each of the six
ments, or generation of ideas.
the mean is considered structured, and more than one
standard deviation below the mean is considered rigid. In other words, higher scores demonstrate flexibility, and lower scores show rigidity. The internal consistency reliability of this subscale is .75.
coded variables. An alpha level of .01 was used to reduce
the risk of Type I error. One test was significant at the .005 level. Deaf fathers and hearing fathers were significantly different on number of ideas accepted (t (J) = 3.7, p< .005). Deaf fathers had fewer of their ideas accepted by the family
Data Coding
than hearing fathers.
A prestudy was used to develop a workable scoring system and to train raters to .80 reliability on all rating
The FACES adaptability scores were significantly higher for the deaf-parented families than the hearing families, t(7) = 6.7, p < .005. Further analyses of the seven FACES subscales produced three significant differences between the deaf-parented and hearing families on assertiveness It (7) = 3.6, p < .0051, discipline It(J) = 4.9, p < .0051, and negotiation It (7) = 3.2, p < .010]. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics. The control, roles, rules, and system
scales.
Scripts were obtained by having three people independently translate family interactions. Two professional sign language interpreters were added for translation in the deaf-parented families. Translation discrepancies were negotiated until all five translators agreed. The rated variables were scored by two raters who viewed the videotapes while having the typed script available to them at all times. No restrictions were placed
feedback subscales did not show significant differences at the .01 level.
on the number of times the raters could view an interaction
before recording their score, and raters frequently re-
Discussion
wound to examine the interactions. Raters had no direct
The child's influence was significantly greater in the
contact with translators during the project. All the translators and raters had previous knowledge of sign language.
deaf-parented families than in the hearing-parented families, yet the two groups did not differ in the number of speeches completed, the number of ideas they proposed,
Results
the number of questions they asked, or their assertiveness
in expressing disagreement. The observed differences
Six matched sample r-tests compared the children of deaf parents to the children of hearing parents on the six objective measures. Two of these tests were significant at
cannot be accounted for by examining the children's behavior. The videotaped family interactions suggest that
the deaf parents granted their children greater influence. The higher level of influence of the children of deaf parents appears to be the result of differences observed in
the .05 level.
The children of deaf parents had significantly more influence than the children of hearing parents on both number of ideas accepted (t (J) = 2.7, p < .025) and
the behavior of the fathers. Hearing fathers had more of
percentage of ideas accepted (r(7) = 2.2, p < .05). Table 1
their ideas accepted by the family than deaf fathers,
presents the descriptive statistics. No significant differences were found between the two groups of children on number
whereas no significant differences were found between
Table 1. Ideas Accepted In Deaf-parented and Hearing
Table 2. FACES Scores for Deaf-parented and Hearing
deaf and hearing mothers. The average number of ideas
Families
Families
Deaf-parented Group
M
SD
Hearing M
Deaf-parented
SD
Group Adaptability Score
Children
Number of ideas accepted 3.6* % of ideas accepted
.8*
1.3
2.1
.1
.5
.8 .3
Subscale Score Assertiveness
Fathers
Number of ideas accepted
.5"
.5
1.9
Discipline Negotiation
1.0
*p
