Citation
Morphology and functional communication of the deaf

Material Information

Title:
Morphology and functional communication of the deaf
Creator:
Brumfield, Shannon Maureen
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 139 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
American sign language ( jstor )
Auditory perception ( jstor )
Deafness ( jstor )
Hearing loss ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Linguistic morphology ( jstor )
Manuals ( jstor )
Sign languages ( jstor )
Spoken communication ( jstor )
Words ( jstor )
Deaf -- Means of communication ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 132-137).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shannon Maureen Brumfield.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022479154 ( ALEPH )
AAH6800 ( NOTIS )
04536042 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





















MORPHOLOGY


FUNCTIONAL
OF THE DEAF


COMMUNICATION


SHANNON MAUREEN


BRUMFIELD


DISSERTA


IN PARTIAL


TION PRESENTED TO
THE UNIVERSITY
FULFILLMENT OF T
DEGREE OF DOCTOR


E GRADUATE
FLORIDA
REQUIREMENT
PHILOSOPHY


COUNCIL OF

S FOR THE






































Copyright


Shannon


Maureen


Brumfield


1978







































my very


special


friends,


Dr. and Mrs.


Fred


0. Brumfield

















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


would


like


express


appreciation


to all members


my super-


visory


committee


for their


guidance,


suggestions


support


which


made


the completion


of this


stud


possible.


very


special


thank


to my


chairman


in absentia,


Dr. Edward


C. Hutchinson,


for academic


moral


support


during


my graduate


studies


and his thorough


guidance


this


study


toward


its completion.


would


also


like


to thank Marilin,


his wife,


on several


occasions


acted


as courier


in delivering


cor-


respondence


between


Gainesville


and North


Carolina.)


In addition


the time


and effort


so willingly


gave


to this


project, I


would


like


to thank


my cochairman,


Dr. Robert


Scholes,


for helping


to instill


in me


an enthusiasm


for research.


Appreciation


is also


extended


toward


Dr. Scholes


for helping


me maintain


necessary


momentum


to complete


this


study


with


comments


such


as "I


plan


to retire


when


finish


wish


to thank


Ira S


Fischler


for his contributions


and critique


on test


design,


experimental


procedure,


and data


analysis.


thusiastic


guidance


special


thanks


on psychologic

are extended


approaches


to the faculty


memory was


and staff


invaluable.


of the


Florida


School


for the Deaf


and Blind,


especially


to Mr


Joseph


Finnegan,


Mr. Jerry


Prokes,


Ms. Pat Westmoreland,


Mr. John


. Tiffany,


en-


T










For their


enthusiasm and


cooperation


thank


the subjects who


partici-


pated


in this


study.


would


like


to extend


sincere


thanks


to Mr


Marshall


Cohen


for his help


with


the statistical


analyses


of this


study.


would


also


like


to thank Mr.


James


Flavin,


Office


of Instruc-


tional


Resources,


University


of Florida,


for his production


of the


presentation


film and


his instructions


on the usage of


the video


equip-


ment


cameras.


Nothing


can express


how much


owe my family,


friends,


and Mitsouki


for their


support


toward


the successful


completion


of this


venture.


















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.


ABSTRACT


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION .


CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE RELATED


LITERATURE


Introduction


eories
Intr


S a a a. a a 3


in Deaf Education


oduction


Oral


vs.


Manual


Controve


a a a a a a4


Current
Summary


Theories


Philo


a a a a a S 8


sophies


Education


American


Sign


Language


as an Effective


Communi


cation


temr


Introduction


Acqui


sition


f Communication Systems by Normal


and Deaf


Children


Studies


Utilizin


Signs


for Communi


cation


Prose


and AMESLAN


Communication.


Summary of
Effective


American


Sign


Communication


guage


as an


system


Language


Assessment


Introduction


Cognitive
Linguistic


Resea


search,


Summary


Review


Language


assessment


Morphological Assessment
Introduction .


Rationale
Morpholog


for the Use


ical


Studies


Nonsense


llables


Deaf


Summary
Statement o


of Morphologi
f the Problem


Assessment











Page


BTT Graphic
BTT Manual


FC
Scoring


* a a S S S S S S


Task.


Criterion


Graphic


and Manual


Ratin


Analysis


S S S S S S S S S S S64


CHAPTER


RESULTS.


S S S S S S SS S S S S S S69


Introduction
Linguistic P
Correlations
the Judged


rformance on Graphic and Manual


Among
evel


Graphic BTT, Manual
of FC Proficiency. .


BTT,


Demographic


Data


Etiolog
dB Loss
Reading


Leve


When


* S S SS S S S S 573


llin


First Acquir


First
Other


Persons
Number


Language
Hearing


in the


Impaired


at Home Who


ears


Home


Family


Can Fin


Atte


dance


Members


pell


at FSDB


and/or Sign


S 75


S S S S S S S S S S S S S76


Race
Sex


Summary


results


5 4 S S S S S S S S 576


CHAPTER


SUMMARY


OF DISCUSSION


a S S S S S S S S S S 586


Morphologic
Introdu


Assessment


action


Graphic


and Manual


S S S S S S S 586


scuss


S S S S S S S S S S S S87


Hierarc
Nature


Errors.


of the Test


S S S S S S S S S87


Format


S S S S S S S S S 90


Error


Types.


Correlations


Among


Graphic


Manual


and FC


ores


S SS S S S S S S S S SS 94


Introduction


Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and FC


cores


. 94


Discussion


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S95


Correlations


with


eadin


and Writing.


. 95


Memory


for P


rn)SP


and C


nitive


Implications


71


--- '


----


rv










Page


of Learning


Finger


pelling.


Loss


Imol


Age o
First
Perso
Other
Numbe
IQ
Race
icati


f


r
*


Subjects.
Language in the H
s at Home Who Can
Hearing Impaired
of Years of Atte


and Sex
ons for


Suggestions for


Further
Language


ome


Eilm


Family
dance


zer Spell and/or Sign


Members
at FSDB


Research. .
Assessment. *


APPENDIX A:



APPENDIX B:


APPENDIX


APPENDIX D:


APPENDIX E:




APPENDIX F:


SUBJECT



FINGER S
STUDENT
PROTOCOL
SCORING


PROFILE *



SPELLING TEST .
INSTRUCTIONS .
INSTRUCTIONS .
SYSTEM .


TEST EXAMPLES
INSTRUCTIONS
ANSWER SHEET


SIGNS REVIEWED
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS


INSTRUCTIONS .
STORY PARAGRAPH


* S S S S S S S S S S



* S S S S S S 5 0 5 5 5
* S S S S S S S S S S S


* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
* S S S S S S S S S S S


INSTRUCTIONS .
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECOND
FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION


VIEWING.
EVALUATION


SHEET


BIBLIOGRAPHY



BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH.


v ------










Abstract of Dissertation Presented


to the


Graduate Council of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
OF THE DEAF

By

Shannon Maureen Brumfield


June 1978


Chairman:


Edward C.


Hutchinson


Major Department:

Cochairman: Robe
Major Department:


Speech


irt J. Scholes
Speech


This investigation was conducted


to obtain information about two


distinct aspects of


the communicative ability of


the deaf.


The first


research question dealt with the ability and extent to which the deaf


are able to utilize and/or understand


the syntax of a natural language


(i.e.,


English).


Previous linguistic experiments conducted in the oral


or graphic mediums had raised a question as to whether


scores were the result of


low linguistic


true ignorance for a task or difficulty with


the testing medium itself.


The functional


communicative effectiveness


(FC) of


the deaf for


conveying specific information when allowed to utilize the preferred


visual-gestural, American Sign Language (AMESLAN)


communication method


was also investigated.


The second question was to determine the nature


of the relationship between linguistic scores and


judged level of FC










etiology,


dB loss


in the better


ear,


first


language


in the home,


other


hearing


and/or


impaired


sign,


family


when


members,


finger


persons


spelling


at home


was first


can finger


acquired,


spell


number


years


at Florida


School


for the Deaf


and Blind


(FSDB)


reading


level,


age,


race,


sex.


.Tho Rorrv-Tnlhntt


L.anua e
u g


- ~' p -


Tests


Comprehension


of Grammar


(BTT),


a test


of morphology,


was administered


two distinct


testing


situations.


One preserved


the traditional


testing


format


of graphic


presentation


response.


finger


The other


spelling


presented


and signed


English


same


test


presentation


stimuli


where


a video


the subject


taped,


finger


spelled


response.


A paired


difference


t-statistic


revealed


a signifi-


cant


difference


correct


responses


in favor


of the graphic


presentation.


For the FC


told


rating


in his preferred


the subject


manner


read


a simple


communication.


paragraph


This


which


story was


video


taped


for later


scoring


groups


of judges


who were


fluent


in sign


and finger


spelling.


Performance


was rated


on a general


quality


scale


and on the inclusion


of specific


main


and detail


items


of the


story.


Analysis


of the Quality


Score


showed


the deaf


students


to be


slightly


below


average


in their


communicative


ability.


Graphic


scores


and Manual


scores


and Graphic


scores


and FC


ratings


were


highly


correlated


at the


.01 level.


Manual


scores


and FC


ratings


were


not correlated.


Regression models


were


developed


for prediction of


the variance


within


the dependent


variables


Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and FC


as a


re-


r ir~

















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


process


of language


acquisition


is dependent


upon many


biologi-


cal and environmental


factors.


Among


the sensory modalities


the auditory


form

of th

curso

limit


is of prime

is modality

ry comparison


ed


verbal


importance

usually ha


of hearing


expression


for normal


s a disastro


and deaf


of the childr


acquisition

us effect o

children re

en deprived


to occur.


n language.


veals


Deprivation


Even


the extremely


of auditory


stimula-


tion.


a report


to the Committee


on the Education


of the Deaf


Morton


in 1965


stated,


in addition


to other


information,


that


average


for the deaf


graduate
- the cl


a public


osest we


residential


school


have to generally


available


"high


schools" for


the deaf


has,


in ef-


feet,


an eighth grade


education.


Seniors
college


at Gallaudet


for the


deaf,


College,


rank


the nation'


close


to the


only


bottom


in performance


on the Graduate


Record


Exam. (p


. 108)


This


situation


has remained


relatively


unchanged


years


later.


Anken


and Holmes


reported


in 1977


that


even


after


years


of extensive


education


with


an overwhelming


emphasis


on language,


the linguistic


per-


formance


of the


average


prelingually


deaf


adolescent


has remained


tremely


poor


in the


areas


of reading


and written


composition.


ex-









such as etiology,


early


language stimulation and method of classroom


instruction.


Additional research has also been conducted to obtain in-


formation concerning performance on cognitive tasks, specific linguistic


tasks,


pertinent qualities of American Sign Language (AMESLAN)


as well


as the ability of


the deaf to precisely communicate information utilizing


their own visual-gestural


(sign language)


system of communication.


The present investigation was conducted


to obtain information about


two distinct aspects of the communicative ability of deaf adolescents.


The Berry-Talbott Test of Morphological and Derivational Rules


(BTT)


(Berry,


1966) was used to compare linguistic skills for specific mor-


phological items which were presented in two separate conditions--graphic


presentation and manual presentation.


The graphic and manual BTT scores


were then compared.


A measure was obtained of


the subject's communicative effective-


ness,


Functional Communication


, for conveying specific information


when allowed to utilize his preferred visual-gestural


(AMESLAN) communi-


cation method.


This FC score was compared with both BTT scores.


Finally


the two BTT scores and the FC scores were compared


to the subject's en-


vironmental,


educational,


and medical data.


















CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE RELATED


LITERATURE


Introduction


Because


some


correlation


between


the performance


of the deaf


the hard-of-hearing


has been


established,


pertinent


studies


with


latter

in deaf


group are

education


included


is locat


in the literature

ed in the first s


review.


section.


A review

The second


of theories

section


contains


theories


on the validity


of AMESLAN


as an effective


communica-


tion


system.


An examination


of the performance


the deaf


on language


assessment


tasks


is the main


topic


for the third


section.


Both


cogni-


tive


and syntactical


tasks


and their


evaluation


procedures


are included.


Specific


morphological


assessments


are found


in the fourth


section.


The rationale


and previous


usage


of the BTT


is also


reported.


Finally


a statement


of the problem


for this


investigation


is presented.


Theories


in Deaf


Education


Introduction


Debates


as to the


exact


format


of deaf


education


have


prevailed


over


centuries.


one side


there


are the educators


who take


some


form


of linguistic


viewpoint


- -


where


it is paramount


1- -


that

--4


the child b

I


e exposed

*


m


r


. I










purely


oral


school,


finger


spelling


and/or


signed


English


approaches.


(The


latter


two methodologies


are direct


mappings


of visual


clues


upon


spoken


English.)


among


these


groups


themselves


there


are disagree-


ments


as to the best


methodology


for implementing


language.


contrast


some


educators


feel


that


it is


more


important


for the


deaf


to first


acquire


form


of communication


system.


(This


would


necessarily


preclude


learning


traditional


English


at some


later


age.)


group


that


considers


AMESLAN


to be the primary


language


of the deaf


advo-


cates


this


system of


deaf


education.


The obvious


example


for their


tionale


is the markedly


superior


communicative


ability


of deaf


children


deaf


parents,


are exposed


an early


form of


communication


as opposed


to the generally


parents,


inferior


are usually


communica tive


deprived


abilities


of such


of deaf


a system.


children


However,


hear-


this


visual-gestural


viewed


system


as an inferior


has been


communicative


traditionally,


system


incapable


in many


cases


of expressing


still


any-


thing


very


simple


concrete


needs.


For this


reason


it has


been


only


cently


that


researchers


have


even


considered


studying


the basic


properties


and communicative


effectiveness


of AMESLAN


as a language


system.


Some


mni-


tial


experiments


support


the traditional


view


(Schlesinger,


1971)


whereas


other


than


investigators


previously


have


thought


found


this


(Bellugi


communication


Fischer


, 1972;


system more


Bode


sophisticated


1974).


An overview


of traditional


contemporary


philosophies


and the


suing


controversies


in deaf


education


is included


in this


section.


ra-


re-


en-










rare


to find


someone


opposed


earlier


diagnosis


of the problem


and immediate


amplification


and extensive


language


intervention.


There


however,


some


controversy


as to the


exact


manner


for implementation


of this


training.


The debate


of Oralism


Manualism


is practically


as old as deaf


education


itself.


Very


generally


the oral


group


believes


that


instruc-


tion


should


be purely


oral


and emphasizes


amplification,


training


residual


hearing,


and speech


reading.


manual


group


for the most


part,


also


believes


that


everything


previously


cited


important


how-


ever


, they


also


emphasize


the addition


of visual


clues


to the speech


code


either


finger


spelling,


signing


or both.


Arguments


for Oralism


are strong


and impressive.


Most


of the


world


s population


do hear; so


it is important


that


the deaf


child


integrate


into


this


society.


Signing


sort


is emphatically


discouraged


since


is believed


that


it will


contaminate


even


pre-


ven t


speech


development.


Without


signs


the deaf


child


is free


to develop


in an


unhindered


manner


more


"natural"''


mode


speech.


Signing


also


discouraged


for the additional


reason


that


it is


believed


to be


inferior


language


that


will


only


confuse


and confine


the natural


lan-


guage


development


of the child


because


signs


are viewed


as too inefficient


a method


to allow


for the subtleties


of normal


language.


These


arguments


are very


attractive


to the hearing


parents


of deaf


infants.


They


offer


glowing


hope


that


through


constant


language


stimula-


tion


someday


their


child


will


overcome


his handicap


and utilize


speech










Manualism


has an early


history


in the United


States.


French


Method (s

Gallaudet


igns)


College


was brought


today


to this


conducts


country


instruction


Edwar

using


Gallaudet


signs.


Wh il


and

e the


Manualists would not


deny


the child's


need


to speak


and learn


traditional


English, they


believe


that


some


sort


of visual


clue


will


enhance


this


process.


does


They


not give


contend

adequate


that the Oralist' s

visual information


emphasis

about th


on speech


e language


reading

content.


It has been


shown


Alterman


(1970)


that


only


20%-40%


of English


phonemes


are visible


on the lips.


movements


are transient


and quite


fine.


They


therefore


place


a great


strain


on visual


proficiency


memory.


Pelson


and Prather


(1974)


found


that


reading


performance


deteriorated so

The performance


mewhat w

of both


ith


groups


for both

was much


normal

better


and hearing

for phrases


impaired.


sentences


than fo

are the


r isolated


ones


words.


who have


It is often


the best


said


knowledge


that


the best


grammar


a good


readers

vocabulary


and a good


ability


to guess


at ambiguous


content.


Speech may


be the natural


mod e


of language


acquisition


for the


hearing


child


but if this


process


is dependent


on an intact


auditory


feedback


this


loop


auditory


as Fry

feedback


(1966) b

k speech


believed,


then


in the absence


not be the ideal


medium


or deficit


for communica-


tion


the deaf.


The Manualists


are quick


to elucidate


that


today


the deaf


popula-


tion


differs


from


one of 30


years


ago.


Now almost


all of the chil-


dren


are congenitally


or prelinguall


y deaf


whereas


in the 1940's











Much


of this


debate


can be related


to the heterogeneity


of the


deaf


population


itself.


The etiology


of deafness


is extremely


varied.


Therefore


it would


not be surprising


to discover


differences


in language


abilities


with


variations


in other


variables


such


as IQ


, dB loss,


educa-


tional


experience,


or anything


else.


Now,


only


about


5% of the population


come


deaf


postlingually


as opposed


to around


35% in 1940


(Vernon,


1968).


Today


rubella,


when


contracted


the mother


during


state


pregnancy


one of the


most


frequent


causes


of deafness.


The effect


this


disease


so in-


sidious


that


even


if the mother


should


contact


such


a mild


case


that


unaware


any pathology


it is


not unlikely


that


the baby will


have


a congenital


hearing


defect.


a little


less


than


one-half


of the


cases


the etiology


of deaf-


ness


is unknown.


exist


in isolation


but is frequently


accompanied


other


disabilities


which


may be congenital


or acquired.


There


is less


possibility


for accompany in


anomalies


for deaf


children


with


deaf


parents


since


in these


cases


the disability


is attributed


largely


to hereditary


factors.


a large


survey


Schein


(1975)


discovered


that


or more


deaf


school


children


had additional


disabilities.


It has been


noted


that


four


of the five


other


etiologies


commonly


associated


with


deafness


are also


associated


with


congenital


brain


damage.


The damage


in these


cases


very


subtle


and masked


the overwhelming


variable


of deafness.


Con-


* 1


r ., n. ty. nn r tb~A c, t Ac, AFfi',l -i- A t-r


nnrl r-


;t ic~


tn rip~art


nnnIr nn Ct ~r


mn thn rl ~


...- 1


ft r/- *-1


i t k nIl"rr nn r


y











Current


Theories


one time


the Manualists


not have


an adequate


reply


for the


contention


that


AMESLAN


was a poor


and inferior


language.


At best


that


could


be said


was that


AMESLAN


did afford


the deaf


some


medium of


communication.


Recent


preliminary


research


has revealed


that


AMESLAN


is really


more


sophisticated


than


previously


believed


(Bellugi


Fischer,


1972;


Cutting


Kavanagh,


1975).


It has also


been


noted


that


just


as spoken


language


has certain


phonemes


with


specific


boundaries,


signs


also


possess


equivalent


restric-


tions.


Signs


are a


unique


combination


of three


parameters:


place,


in relation


to body


parts,


where


the sign


begins


and ends, (b)


appearance


of the hand


tha t


forms


the sign


itself,


and (


action


the sign


(Kan-


napell,

signers


1974).

report


equivalent


it has been


of these


seeing


to "slips


observed


sign


of the


that


parameter

as either


tongue


the deaf


are violated


incorrect


" (Cutting


have


then


native


, dialectical,


Kavanagh,


their


1975).


own humor


or the


Indeed


puns.


There

as to the be


has been much

st method for


disagreement


implementing


among


the Manualists


the visual


clues.


themselves


Hollis


Carrier


(1975)


cited


the work


of Premack


to support


the hypothesis


that


using


a nonspeech


mode


to implement


a set of comprehensive


concepts


would


make


it easier


to learn


more


functional


mode


of speech.


Kannapell


(1974)


thought


of AMESLAN


as the "mother


tongue"


sug-


gested


that


current


trends


in bilingual


education


be followed


in refer-


- ~ ~ ~ t '.. -A-a- L.,^r...- ,.A 4, r *t f


V...r

t\ n n n rl


,,,,~:,1


t


n ~ n rrv nm


rrrcr










sign


have


only


meaning


in AMESLAN


seven


ral in


signed


English.


Inflections


affixed


a sign


not allow


for the
words.


ular


Engli


formations


for certain


Stress is
therefore,
derivation


equal
the d


can occur


and is


taught


have


as in adj


mainly
no idea


for adverbs;


that


ectives.


other


418)


Others


view


finger


spelling


as the ideal


visual


clue


for the deaf


child.


proponents


argue


that


since


it is


an exact


letter


for letter


duplication


of spoken


English


it will


give


the child


an exact


knowledge


of his language


is used


the Soviet


for every wo


Union,


preserve

rd that


for isolated


traditional

is spoken.


words


grammar.


However,


to help


Usually


finger


be used


in clarification


spelling

as in


(Morkovin,


1968).


Hoemann


(1974) found


that


use of finger


spelling


did favorably


influence


the deaf'


ability


to label


pictures.


did caution


that


must


be introduced


at the beginning


of formal


education.


When


it is first


presented


letter


young


but by


child


the unique


does


hand


recognize


configurations


a word


which


spelling


compose


out each


a particular


word.


Some


of the


arguments


against lip reading


can also


be levelled,


to some degree at


least,


against


finger


spelling.


The latter


is also


fleeting,


visually


small


and somewhat


context


specific.


At the speed


of conversation


precise


letter


configuration


not reached


before


movement

The Or


toward


alists'


next


objection


letter

n that


begins

finger


(Fisher


spelling


lHusa,


hinders


1973).


develop-









Summary


of Philosophies


in Deaf


Education


A review


of philosophies


in deaf


education


has indicated


the fol-


lowing:


Advocates


of Oral


and Manual


education


agree


on such


issues


early


diagnosis,


immediate


amplification,


and extensive


language


inter-


vention.


The Oralists


emphasize


oral


instruction,


auditory


training,


and lip


reading.


The Manualists


agree


that


all activities


in the above


item


are important;


however,


they


also


believe


that


additional


visual


clues


are necessary


to aid the deaf


s acquisition


of language.


There


has been


no evidence


that


signing


or finger


spelling


hinder s


the speech


of the deaf.


There


are disagreements


among


the Manualists


themselves


as to


the best


method


for language


intervention:


finger


spelling--which


spells


each


word


as it is simul-


taneously


spoken


signed


English--which


is also


a direct


mapping


to the


spoken


Engli


except


that


signs


as well


as finger


spelling


are utilized


AMESLAN--which


is the


unique


language


of the deaf


and does


not have


same


properties


or syntax


of spoken


traditional


English


English


as a second


language--which,


as an instructional










A nonsense


test


of morphology


utilizing


a manual


(signed


English)


as well


as the


more


traditional


graphic


mediums


for item


presentation


response


would:


precisely


define


points


of deviancy


give


educators


of the deaf


insight


into


their


present


and future


instructional


format


providing


evidence


for possible modi-


fiction.


A communicative


effectiveness


rating


based


on the subject's


ability


convey


some


standard


prose


in his preferred


visual-gestural


(AMESLAN)


medium would:


give


insight


as to the communicative


ability


level


the deaf,


as well


as the effectiveness


of AMESLAN


itself


convey


thoughts


and ideas


contribute


more


information


in the still


relatively


known


area


of AMESLAN


discern


correlation


on specific


linguistic


tasks


is related


to general


communicative


effectiveness


when


utilizing AMESLAN.


American


Sign


Language


as an Effective


Communication


System


Introduction


In this


communicative


approach


with


the deaf


concern


much


with


the particular


morphemes


or syntax


of traditional


languages


(i.e.,


English,


French,


Aztec,


Japanese,


etc.)


but rather with


com-


un-










gesturing,

English, a


and signing.


[plethora


It is known

ideas--ideas


that

such


in natural

as causality


languages,

("Getting


such


hit by


the ba t


mad e


John


cry.


abstract


concepts


can be


adequately


com-


municated.


One of the questions


most


frequently


asked


about


AMESLAN


that


of its communicative


of natural


(traditional)


effectiveness

languages. Is


when


there a


compared


to the efficiency


communication


deficiency


in this


particular


signing


system


even


when


employed


competent


signers?


Another


question


under


investigation


is whether


performance


on traditional


linguistic


tasks


give


some


indication


as to the general


communica-


tive


level


a deaf


subject


when


he is allowed


free


usage


of his


visual-gestural


Acquisition of


communication


Communication


system


Systems


convey


Normal


new


information.


and Deaf


Children


Around


the babbling


stage


of 4


or 5


month s


the deaf


child's


pro-


duction


begins


to differ


from


the normal


(Menyuk,


1969).


The hearing


child,

stantly


reinforced

repeating


hearing


nonsense


utterances,


syllables.


Naturally


amuse


the deaf


himself


child


con-


lacks


this


reinforcement.


Even


before


this


difference


in production


ticed


there


existed


an auditory


perceptual


difference


in that


the hear-


child


has been


responding


to sounds


localization,


discrimination


and increasing


sensitivity


to intonation


and rhythm.


ever


increasing


develops


between


the deaf


and hearing


child.


While


the hearing


child


gin to produce words


from


to 12 months,


this


not occur


for the deaf


child


until


or 4.


- 4


r~ ~ 4 **** t, r~tfl t*~ t~' .4 an n nr- nl r1aflhfC


nr, nrt


Fnr nnrnim 1


own


no-


0


~ ,,,,


1' --a nd


lan 01r9n~


Il~r. i


n-










time


then


the child


never


achieve


adult


competence


and performance


(Lennenberg,


1966).


Unfortunately


it is


not unusual


for language


stimu-


nation


for deaf


children


to begin


at the


time


of formal


education


which


is usually


around


of 6


or 7.


Hoemann


(1974) noted


that


the scho-


plastic


performance


of those


high


school


deaf


students


had a preschool


language


program was


significantly


better


than


their


peers


were


proved


this


experience.


Because


the deaf


population


uses


gestures


instead


of speech,


was once


thought


and in


some


cases


still


believed,


to be


a primitive


system which


could


only


be used


expressing


basic


needs.


Unfortunately


a very


primitive


gesture


system


is the only


means


communication


some


of the deaf.


These


people


are often


deaf


chil-


dren


of hearing


parents


and have


not been


exposed


to other


deaf


people.


Even


though


some


signs


seem


to be universal--as


in pointing


to the mouth


hungry


or "food"


--this


deaf


person,


for lack


of other


stimuli,


develops


own idiosyncratic


gesture


system.


Some


deaf


individuals


may develop


a more


regulated


system--due


part


to their


environment.


In schools


for the deaf


it is well


known


that


the children


do in fact


sign


when


the faculty


are not watching.


Later


if they


become


affiliated


with


other


members


of the deaf


community


their


signing


becomes


more


regulated


in that


certain


signs


are accepted


used


everyone


for a particular


word


or concept.


These


people


establish


a fairly


consistent


means


of gestural


communication.


As Bellugi


and Fischer (1972)


have


noted


there


are several


features










The above


authors


found


that


although


it took


longer


to sign


particular


word


than


say it,


the time


it took


a sentence


to sign


adjustments


was nearly


which


equal.


all signers


Research


so far has yielded


instinctively


utilize:


the following

"doing without"


or the exclusion


of words


which


not hinder


the intent


a statement


such


as the copula,


articles,


inflections, and


some


prepositions,


"incorporation"


indicate


or a slight


orientation,


variance


pronominalization,


a sign


number,


which


be utilized


manner,


size,


shape,


and (c)


bodily


or facial


shifts.


Not surprisingly


the above


three


signing


universals


are elements


that


have


and still


do lead


people


to believe


that


signing


a very


primitive


language.


Deaf


children


of deaf


parents


have


consistently


performed


better


than


deaf


children


of hearing


parents.


For the former


their


sign


vocabu-


lary


natural


appears


a little


earlier


than


words


in the hearing


child


(Stokoe,


1975).


This


sign


vocabulary


grows


at the


same


rate


as a speech


vocabulary.


One of the


reasons


for this


parallel


acquisition,


at least


in the


rather


early


stages


thus


far investigated,


could


be the early


interven-


tion


on the


part


of the deaf


parents


with


a communication


system which


the child


could


employ


in much


same


manner


that


the hearing


child


employs


speech.


Therefore,


the critical


language


period


not wasted.


It has been


suggested


that


perhaps


the deaf


follow


same


stages


acquisition


of certain


language


universalss"


--as


in the


use of negation










Research


in the development


of AMESLAN


in children


and the studies


of the properties


AMIESLAN


itself


are still


very


meager


and there


a current


debate


as to the validity


of AMESLAN


as a language


system.


Studies


Utilizing


Signs


for Communication


Schlesinger


(1971)


performed


an experiment


in which


his deaf


sub-


jects


were


encouraged


sign.


Results


indicated


that


even


when


per-


mitted


to utilize


their


gestural-visual


modalities


these


deaf


subjects


were


unable


to communicate


to each


other


the relationship


among


agent,


direct


object,


and indirect


object


from among


a set of picture


cards


permitting


all possible


mutations


of these


three


roles.


Because


these


results


it has been


hypothesized


that


since


deaf


fail


on certain


tasks


syntactic


ability,


even


cases


where


they


are permitted


use their


own gestural


communication,


that


they


lack


the means


of expressing


certain


relationships


and/or


they


totally


unaware


of these


relationships.


The implication


of the first


hypothesis


naturally


is that


gestural


communication


an inferior


language


because


of its inability


press


more


complex


and abstract


relationships.


Many


people


oppose


signs


this


very


reason.


It is felt


that


exposure


to signs


is contaminat-


in that


enrichments


it binds


afforded


signer


to the


traditional


concrete


language


such


and does


not allow


as abstraction,


per-


sonification, and humor.


There


however


anecdotal


evidence


a cer-


type


of humor


typical


of the deaf


and therefore


named


"deaf


humor,


are


ex-


tain









The syntactic

Schlesinger e


underlying


structure


experiment


relationship


under


investigation


was the direct


was


a rather


in the previously


and indirect


simple


object,


one occurring


cited


and the


frequently


in daily


life.


Bode


(1974)


replicated


this


experiment


with


one important


differ-


ence. I

factors.


'he deaf

With


subjects


this


were


variable


matched

constant


on environmental

her subjects had


and cultural


little difficulty


differentiating


their


partner's


signed


message


for the appropriate


direct


and indirect


subjects


object


not only


from


knew


among


about


a set of ambiguous


the relationship


pictures.


of this


concept


These


deaf


could


successfully


Prose and AM


communicate


ESLAN


to others.


Communication


Previous


investigators


have


analyzed


the deaf's


ability


com-


municate


words


and specific


sentence


structures


in AMESLAN.


formal-


ized"


analysis


has been


made


of the deaf


s ability


to utilize


AMESLAN


to effectively


communicate


prose.


Usage of "formalized"


in this


instance


is the requirement


to communicate


items


a specific


paragraph,


mere


retelling


a story


or event


with


which


the subject


is already


familiar.


Since


we are interested


in the communication


effectiveness


of what-


ever


signalling


system


is utilized, the


Semantic


Observational Approach


(for


rating


would


be the method


to employ.


This


approach


main

ideas


principles:

themselves.


a reality


and (b)


principle--which


a cooperative


is concerned


orincinle--which


with


is concerned


two











what


information


the listener


needs


to know


and keep


the conversation


pertinent


to the desired


goal


or issue


of the subject


(Clark &


Clark,


Chapter


1977).


Memory


a vital


component


prose


recall


consequent


com-


munication


to others.


performance


of normals


on certain


tasks


memory


is briefly


of previous


reviewed


experiments


(see


here;


and it will


section


three,


be assume

Cognitive


from


Research


the data

h) that


the cognitive


processes


of the deaf


for semantic


organization


are corn-


parable


to those


of normals.


a paragraph


recall


situation,


memory


(input,


storage,


output)


and linguistic

are lengthy, v


ability


ery


are main f

experiments


actors.


have


Because


been


stories


conducted


and paragraphs


on any subjects.


Mos t


of the


prose


recall


normals


is inferred


from


investigations


which


can study memory


a more


direct


manner.


These


studies


would


clude


investigations


with


words,


letters


, constituents,


sentences


for Short


or Long


Term Memory.


Clark


and Clark


(Chapter


, 1977)


cited


the following


as some


the crucial


fac tors


which


determine


memory


prose:


Type


of Language--as


a lecture,


story,


poem,


unrelat


sentences


a psychological


experiment


Input--as


cases


hear in


or reading


trial


and the


specific


instructions


as to what


to retain,


for example


word


for word


memorization,


general


particular


detention


. -


meaning


features


Interval--as


passage,


or notation


as in grammatical


in delayed


errors


or immediate


re-


r .


ma-










Certain


biases


are evident


in constructing


sentences


from memory:


input


of information


not actually


in the


sentence


tendency


towards


simple


(unmarked)


syntax


strong
appear


preference


in the initial


in English


for the subject


position


preference


for the affirmative


over


the negative


with


claus


a preference


to describe


events
Clark,


in order
Chapter


of their
, 1977)


actual


occurrence.(Clark


The kind


amount


of information


remembered


depends


critically


on the study


strategies


people


use.


This


can


seen


the different


performances


of people


are given


same


test


but presented


with


different


instructions.


There are


other


general


implications


evident


in memory


recall


tasks:


to obtain


meaning


rather


than


word


for word


retention


a tendency


to draw


the obvious


conclusion


a reliance
the reality


on world


knowledge


in conformity


with


principle


a tendency


use referents


--attempts


to integrate


new information


with


what


already


known


a tendency


towards


utili


zing


indirect


meaning where


listener


thinks


tries


was meant


to build
to build


the interpretations


a tendency
sentations


create


new


towards


where


creation


with


each


representations


of global


new sentence


unrelated


repre-


people
any single


sentence.


(Clark


Clark,


Chapter


, 1977)


As linguistic


ability


one of the


two essential


features


prose


recall,


it is


very


important


to remember


this


paramount


feature when











to effectively


communicate


new ideas,


communica tion


rather


than


linguistic


competence


is the


maJ or


issue.


Therefore


prose


passage


for this


study


is syntactically


relatively


simple.


Research


conducted


Odom and


Blanton


(1967)


indicated


that


syn-


tactic


order


not facilitate memory


recall


hearing


impaired


stu-


dents


as it did for the hearing.


The syntactically


ordered


stimuli


presented


in their


paired


associate


paradigm


consisted


of (a)


partial


sentences


[Verb


phrases


or partial [noun


(N)] and


V phrases


fragments


[partial


noun


phrases


and partial


verb


phrase


(VP)].


Other


stimuli


were


asyntactically


ordered.


Further


formance


research


the deaf


on the effect


and hearing was


of syntactic


conducted


order o

Tomblin


n recall

(1977).


per-

How-


ever,


he changed


his experimental


paradigm


from


that


of Odom and


Blanton.


He studied


immediate


recall


rather


than


recall


from


a paired


associate


task which


required


a longer


retention


period.


The stimuli


consisted


subject-verb-object


(s-v-o0)


strings


of 4


and 8


words


in length.


[Research


has shown


that


both


normals


(Clark


Clark,


Chapter


1977)


and especially


the deaf


(see


section


three,


Linguistic


Research)


biased


toward


this


syntactical


strategy.]


same


words


that


appeared


for the ordered


stimuli


were


recast


an asyntactical


manner


to form


the random


ordered


group.


Although


the hearing


impaired


group


per-


form


less


accurately


under


both


conditions


when


compared


with


their


hear-


peers,


analysis


revealed


a decided


preference


among


both


groups


r -- --x


A- -- -


are











rather


than


Long


Term Memory


and (b)


stimuli


material


which


utilized


the deaf's


predisposition


assign


the S-V-O


strategy


to all


phases


sentences.


There


Walter


have


Kintsch


been


(1977)


several

proposed


investigations

a hierarchical


prose


theory


recall


content


itself.


represen-


station


texts


amount


meaning


which might


be computed


phrases


within


a given


passage).


He admitted


tha t


his theory


was too general


too incomplete.


No processing models


were


given.


However


it does


afford


the researcher


some


rather


systematized


manner


in order


that


the investigation


meaning


texts


can become


the subject


of experimental


design.


Usage


a hierarchical


memory


model


not unique.


Collins


Quillian


(1969)


used


it in application


to words.


For example,


presen-


station


one word


as in "canary"


would


most


readily


activate


next


higher


category


this


case


"bird")


of which


it is


a member.


Kintsch' s


structured


theory


is based


hierarchically


on the hypothesis


a repetition


rule.


that


This


text


rule


bases


refers


the idea


that


given


a set of propositions


one (or


more)


is designated,


rather


arbitrarily


at this


time


the experimenter,


as the topical


thematic


element(


This


rule


would


thereby


specify which


propositions


are connected


to other


propositions,


thus


constituting


levels


hierarchy.


The thematic


proposition


at the


of the hierarchy.


For example,


a story


about


airplane


pilots


and their many


jobs


-. .. 4 S I


are


I 4


4


r


II..


.I


II










would


"transportation


between


cities


" "rescues,


and "dropping


food.


" A third


(subordinate)


level


of propositions


be determined


selecting


those


elements


which


share


agreement with


of the


sec-


ondary


level


propositions


not with


a first


level


proposition.


[Con-


tinuing with


the example,


the phrases


"of people


" "of freight,


mail"


would


all three


be third


(subordinate)


level


propositions


the second


(superordinate)


level


proposition


"transportation.


Kintsch


noted


that


as with


the thematic


proposition(


the superordinate


proposi-


tions


are chosen


intuitively.


Kintsch


was


interested


in evaluating


his theory


and chose


reading


rate


test


structure


as dependent


variables


for his experiment


since


one of the implications


of his hierarchical


theory


was


that


the number


of propositions


should


have


predictable


psychological


effects.


periments


with


the number


type


of propositions


as well


as syntactical


complexity was


tions


related


recalled.


to reading


summary


time


of the results


and the number


from


type


his experiments


of proposi-


tend


give


validity


to his theory.


Reading


time


can be


expre


ssed


as a linear


function


of the number


of propositions


process


sed during


reading


and the length


text.


Time


per propos


ition


is variable


sec.


short h
longest


iistori


narratives


psychological


sec


definition).


for the


The longest


paragraph


only


been


60 words.


manner


which


the subjects


process


a test


related


to the


propositions.
longer reading


A-


struck


Many


tural


-diffe


time than


relationship
rent-arguments
few-different-


among


require


arguments:


ex-


L










Superordinates


of their

A primacy


surface


were


better


structure


effect was


observ


recalled
or serial

ed for th


regardless
position.

e super-


ordinates.


No primacy


effect


was shown


for the subordinates.


recency


ordinates


effect was


noted


for both


and the subordinates.


(Kintsch,


super-
Chapter


1977)


No investigations


similar


to the


ones


above


have


been


conducted


with


the deaf


for either


communicative


or cognitive


information.


Summary


of American


Sign


Language


as an Effective


Communication


System


A review


of American


Sign


Language


as an effective


communicative


system


has revealed


the following:


one time


signs


were


only


viewed


as a very


primitive


method


to make


known


basic


wants


and needs.


Recent


research


has indicated


that


sign


language


does


have


certain


consistent


features


which


would


imply


that


it is


a more


sophisti-


cated


communication method


than


previously


thought.


Naturally more


search


as to the


exact


properties


involved


is needed.


Deaf


children


of deaf


parents


have


an advantage


over


their


peers


of hearing


parents


in that


the former


are given


a communication


system at


once


during


very


early


years


which


some


authors


believe


critical


more


sophisticated


language


acquisition.


Deaf


children


of deaf


parents


display


similar


stages


of in-


re-










It has been


advantage


shown


in traditional


tha t


language


deaf


children


learning


than


of deaf


deaf


parents


children


have


of hearing


parents.

guage ad


More


Vantage


research

persists


is needed

for older


to determine


deaf


if this


adolescents


traditional


for more


lan-


complex


syntactical


tasks.


There


as a communication


a great

system


controversy as

and its ability


to the validity

to adequately c


of AMESLAN


communicate


abstract


thoughts,


concepts


or basic


relationships.


Again,


more


search


is needed.


Because


of the specific


properties


of AMESLAN, the


ability


the deaf

has been


to communicate

questioned; th


concepts


erefore,


and ideas

a rating o


in their


f the deaf's


visual-gestural


ability


mode


com-


municate


in their


preferred


medium


(AMESLAN)


some


standard


paragraph


information


would:


give


additional


information


to this


debated


question


help


ascertain


if performance


on specific


linguistic


items


a reflection


of general


communicative


abilities


contribute


information


into


the relatively


unknown


area


of the deaf


s cognitive


processing


for memory


prose


when


test


design


and recall

compared w


ratings


ith


similar


his preliminary


to Kintsch's


theory


experimental


are utilized


findings


for hear


and results

ing subjects.


Language


Assessment


re-










here


one of communicative


effectiveness,


but rather


the ability


extent


to which


the deaf


are able


to utilize


and/or


understand


syntax of


a natural


language.


To what


extent


and in what


ways


does


syntax


of the deaf


differ


from


that


a hearing


child


acquiring


English?


Educators


of the deaf


have


continually


attempted,


albeit


for the


most


part


unsuccessfully,


to teach


English


from


infancy


through


young


adulthood ar

tic studies.


:e particularly

It would be


interested


invaluable


in the specific


to know


results


one testing


syntac-


procedure,


as opposed


to another,


would


more


indicative


the deaf


s true


lin-


guistic ability.

linguistic skills


It would


were


be equally


related


enlightening


anyway


to discover


to the overall


if specific


communicative


effectiveness


in situations


where AMESLAN


is used.


Language


was


first


assessed


indirectly


through


cognitive


tasks.


Later


studies


of specific


syntactic


structures were begun.


Both


cognitive


and specific


syntactic


research are presented


in this


section.


Cognitive


Research


People


have


traditionally


assumed


that


speech,


language,


thought


were


associated


with


each


other.


Speech


and language


have


ways


been


considered


primary


factors


for placing


humans


a rather


special


category


apart


from other


animals.


Speech


is acquired


by prac-


tically


everyone


and proceeds


along


fairly


consistent


stages


with


little


geographical


or cultural


variation.


Speech


was considered


the outward


manifestation


of the


presence


of lan


guage


Language


turn


was


viewed










which might


disrupt


acquisition


or interfere


with


language


already


acquired


was interpreted


for the specific


purpose


as an act


of teaching


the gods.

language w


Hence,


ras not even


intervention

considered.


As time


passed


speech


and lan


guage


were


no longer


thought


gifts


from


the gods.


However,


the b


elief


remained


that


the absence


outward


manifestation


of language


that


is, speech,


preempted


ability


to think


or reason.


An archaic


Spanish


rule


specified


that


deaf


children


who did


not speak were


not entitled


to inherit


the lands


their


parents.


(Naturally


these


parents


invested


a great


deal


of time


and effort


so that


their


deaf


child


could


utter


a few words


and thus


circumvent


the law.)


Remnants


of the association


of speech,


uage


and thought


remain


today


as in the


usage


of such


expressions


as "deaf


and dumb.


" Speech


pathologists


report


that


questions


often


arise


as to the


extent


of the


cognitive


ability


a speechless


individual.


Cutting


and Kavanagh


(1975)


presented


a good


framework


for viewing


speech and


language


which


were


seen


as "a


model


separate


entities


a symbiotic


partnership


performing


similar


functions


towards


similar


ends


but at different


levels"


503).


Caution


was


offered


about


danger


of forgetting


the interrelated


functions


of these


two systems.


However,


according


to their


theory


speech


works


upward


in the conmmunica-


tion


chain


to constrain


and alter


language


while


language


descends


the opposite


direction


to alter


speech,


the vocal


tract,


and perhaps


ri- on-r










and in the child,


and (c)


comparison


of sign


language


to speech.


It was


concluded


that


was possible


to have


speech


without


language


in fluent


aphasics


and babbling


infants)


and language


without


speech


in oral


apraxia).


However,


there


were


several


different


opinions


as to possible


entries


for the


category


of language


without


speech.


Would


it be


ceptable


gory?


to place


the chimpan


As for the deaf


zees


Furth's


book,


use


signs


Thinking


or symbols


Without


in this


Language


cate-


(1966),


was evidence


for the position


whereas


Bellugi


and Klima's


book,


Signs


Language


press)


was


evidence


for another


position.


However,


the absence


of speech


does


not necessarily


presuppose


absence


of language


and/or


thought.


Because


of the heterogeneity


of the


deaf,


language


assessment


has alwa


been


difficult.


Therefore


popular method


has been


to relate


language


to cognition


concept


formation


and then- evaluate


performance


on language


free


tasks.


Perhaps


the most


prolific


writer


in this


field


has been Hans


Furth.


He summarized


his results


(1966)


for the performance


of deaf


children


on certain


Piagetian


tasks


and concluded


that


their


performance


sentially


same


as that


of hearing


children.


Thus,


at least


for the


ages


concepts


evaluated,


the linguistically


incompetent


deaf


performed


cognitive


tasks


on a par


with


their


hearing


peers.


His results


are not without


contradiction,


but Furth


attributes


poorer


performance


the deaf


in these


studies


to the influence


environmental


factors


and/or


test


design.


In fact,


the detrimental


man


ac-


one


was


es-











In a


review


of all studies


conducted


with


deaf


and hearing


children,


Furth


(1971)


attempted


to isolate


the effects


of linguistic


deficiency.


Areas


were


grouped


according


rule


learning,


logical


symbols,


Piagetian


tasks


, (d)


memory,


and (e)


perception.


He concluded


that


a single


specific


cognitive


area


cannot


be designated


where


the deaf


per-


form


poorer


than


the hearing


controls.


Some areas where


younger


deaf


wer e


initially


poorer


were


located


but they


improved


with matura-


tion


and finally


equalled


the performance


with


their


hearing


peers.


The specific


tasks


must


be considered


when


interpreting


above


data.


Sinclair-De-Zwar t


(1969)


did find


syntactic


ability


cor-


related


with


the Piagetian


conservation


task.


This


result


was in opposi-


tion


to that


of Furth


whose


task


was more


elementary.


Goodnow


(1969)


cautioned


that


"type


thought


and "strength


or stability


of thought"


should


be considered


in that


is important


to test


familiar,


signifi-


cant material


to determine


what


the child


can do,


but it is equally


important


to discover


if the


response


is merely


a replication


past


experience


rather


than


an extension


experience.


Few studies


have


tried


assess


semantic


organization


through


language.


Tweney


and Hoemann


(1973)


chose


to ascertain


the development


of semantic


associations


in profoundly


deaf


children


with


regard


to the


syntagmatic-paradigmatic


shift.


Noun,


verb,


and adjective


associations


were


presented


signs


to the deaf.


This


very


related


shift


been


found


to occur


in hearing


children


between


ages


of 5


and 7.


n -


!L'r


1


Y


- -


nr 1


i II











Tweney


Hoemann,


and Andrews


(1975)


also


studied


semantic


organiza-


tion


through


the clustering


nouns


deaf


and hearing


subjects.


When


the stimuli


were


equally


familiar


to both


groups


no differences


in clus-


terings


were


found.


appears,


then,


that


for the relatively


elementary


types


of cogni-


tive


tasks


thus


far investigated


the performance


of deaf


children


similar,


although


at times


less


advanced,


when


compared


to that


of their


hearing


peers.


Linguistic


Research


Recently


researchers


have


investigated


the performance


of the deaf


on specific


syntactical


items.


These


investigations


which


focused


structures


revealed


more


descriptive


and quantitative


information about


the actual


linguistic


performance


the deaf


subject


than


the language-


free


cognitive


tasks.


Pertinent


studies


of the hard-of-hearing


are included


in this


sec-


tion


since


their


performance


reflects


many


of the


same


difficulties


the deaf.


Depending


upon


the specific


task,


an analysis


of the language


of normal,


hard-of-hearing


and deaf


children


usually


reveals


an approxi-


nation


the hard-of-hearing


group


to that


of the normals


a very


limited


and retarded


performance


the deaf.


However,


with


certain


more


sophisticated


syntactic


structures,


the hard-of-hearing


perform


very


similarly


to the deaf.


Sometimes


this


difficulty


is only


revealed


through


tests


explicitly


designed


assess


performance


on a particular










deficiencies


of the child


are quite


apparent.


many


tasks


per-


formance


is limited,


absent


or indicative


of immature


and/or


deviant


strategies.


Brannon


(1968)


compared


the spoken


output


of normal,


hard-of-hearing,


and deaf


children


according


a linguistic


word


class


system


devised


Jones,


Goodman,


and Wepman


(1963).


Fifty


spoken


responses


to pictures


were


recorded


from


each


with


the hearing


impaired


having


an additional


response


form


so that


they


could


write


each


response


as they


said


These


responses


were


then


classified


into


14 distinct


grammatical


classes.


The differences


in basic


vocabulary were


great


with


the normal


having


a vocabulary


of 10.876 words


and the hard-of-hearing


and deaf


having


vocabularies


of 4,440


and 3


256 words


respectively.


An analysis


according


to word


category


revealed


that


the hard-of-


hearing,


although


definitely


limited,


were


not significantly


different


from


the normal.


deficient


There


in adverbs,


was


pronouns,


a tendency


for the hard-of-hearing


and auxiliaries.


In comparison


to be


the deaf


were


deficient


in these


categories


as well


as in all of the remaining


ones.


Overusage


nouns


and articles


was noted


for both


hearing


paired


groups.


These


(Brannon


results


Hurry,


were


1966)


consistent


which


with


utilized


those


same


a previous


testing


study


procedures


analyzed


sentences


according


to categories


suggested


Myklebust


(1964)


Sentences


were


then


scored


as to


additions


, (b)


omissions,


(c) word


substitutions,


and (d)


word


order.


This


procedure


revealed










In order to determine a hierarchy for graphic,


phonetic, and as-


sociative characteristics in response selection Blanton, Nunnally, and


Odom (1967)


compared the performance of deaf


and hearing students on


three types of word association tasks which consisted of associative,

rhyming, and graphemic similarities.


Both groups had


the same order of preference:


associated, graphemi-


cally similar,


and rhyming pairs.


These results led


the authors to hy-


pothesize that the hearing and deaf subjects were using the same processes.

The deaf did indicate a greater tendency to associate words on the basis


of their graphemic similarity,


but this did not hinder their ability to


respond on the basis of other relationships.


Although hearing,


hard-of-hearing, and deaf


children may use the


same strategies on paired word association tasks,


written vocabulary of


the actual spoken and


the three groups was clearly distinguishable no


matter what categorization or scoring method was employed.


The hard-


of-hearing performance shadowed that of normals but showed deficiencies


in the usage of adverbs,


pronouns,


auxiliaries, and a tendency to over-


use simple S-V-O order in sentence

in a far more pronounced degree,


These same characteristics, but


were also observed for the deaf.


Rather than investigating mere word count and/or category differ-


ences,


other researchers have examined


the usage of


specific construc-


tions in the sentence unit considered


as a whole.


Wilcox and Tobin (1974)


investigated


the linguistic performance


Of ha rd-nf-hnrinQ no nrA thni n cn xr rhl/ron nn nar-nin ,ynrb ,'anerr.,nd*-4









constructions


were


considered:


present


tense,


the auxiliaries


beingn,


have+en,


will)


passive,


negative


passive.


There


were c

tions:


were


constructedd


two sets


and used


repetition


with


each


under


visual


of which


contained


the following


stimuli,


three


sentences


experimental


recall


where


which


condi-

pic-


ture


was


shown


and the appropriate


sentence was


required,


and (c)


repeti-


tion


without


visual


stimuli.


Both


groups


more


difficulty with


recall


task.


The performance


of the hearing


impaired


group


shadowed


that


of the normal


on all constructions


with


exception


of the auxiliary


have+en


and the


negative


passive.


The authors


interpreted


the results


as indicating


that


the hard-


of-hearing


performance


differed


in degree


rather


than


kind.


They


cited


the findings


of Menyuk


(1969)


for hearing


children


from


to 7


years


age.


as that


percentage


achieved


correct


Wilcox


for these


and Tobin' s


children


older


was


practically


but hard-of-hearing


same


children.


Correct


Usage


Menyuk


Wilcox &


Tobin


being


100%


100%


passive

have+en


292)


Quigley


and Power


(1973)


gave


three


types


of passive


sentences


a group


of deaf


children


rang


from


to 18


years.


Reversable,


non-reversable,


agent


deleted


reversable


passives


were


evaluated.


The subjects


were


required


to move


toys


representing


the subject


and ob-









a set of provided words.


Some of the words employed were:


was,


Verb-ed,


Verb-ing, and did.

Differences in performance and comprehension were seen as a func-


tion of age.


A hierarchy of difficulty appeared which from least to most


difficult was: n

deleted passives.


lonreversable passives,

Practically all of t


hension and production of


the passive by


reversable passives, and agent


:he hearing had mastered the compre-


8 whereas this was not the


case


for the deaf even at the


ages


of 17


or 18.


None of


the older deaf


adolescents met the


75% (items correct)


passing criterion for each struc-


ture.


The average correct


scores


for the older deaf adolescents were:


65% for nonreversable passives,


60% for reversable passives, and 35%


for agent deleted passives.


It seemed apparent that the deaf

as a marker for the passive. This str


often only used "by" of the agent


ategy coupled with the deaf's over-


use of S-V-O word order for sentence comprehension could cause them a


great deal of confusion especially in reading.


Hearing 3 year olds have


interpreted passives in this manner.

For correct interpretation of indirect and direct objects younger


children rely solely on the marker "to"


the girl.


as in "He gave the flowers to


Older children however can differentiate direct and indirect


objects by other strategies.


Sentence ambiguity may also be clarified


insertion of an article ("They fed her dog the candies" or "They


fed her the dog candies")


and (b)


appropriate disjuncture


as in a pause


or stress.










were


attending


9.5 19.4


classes


years.


in regular


Subjects


were


public

shown a


schools


series


and ranged

of slides w


in age


ith


from


each


slide


containing


four


pictures.


These


pictures


included


a "B


Reading"

ments as


where


in "The


the article was

ey .. the dog


inserted

candies"


before

thus


the last

rendering


two nominal

the entire


ele-

unit


as the indirect


object;


an "A Reading"


with


the insertion


of the


article


before


the last


nominal


as in "They


the candies"


thus


rendering


a single word


as the indirect


object;


and (


two other


ran-


domly


selected


pictures


from


other


test


sentences


which


bore


no re-


semblance


to the lexical


Subjects


were


items


presented


mentioned


in the


10 unambiguous


sentence


and 5


to be evaluated.


ambiguous


sentences.


"They


fed her dog


candies"


an example


one of the ambiguous


sen-


tences.


test


sentences


were


presented


both


orally


and graphically


as well


as a simultaneous


presentation


of the slide


pictures.


The sub-


ject


pointed


to the picture


number


which


corresponded


to the


sentence.


Lexical


errors,


the selection


of unrelated


pictures


to sentences,


were


practically


nonexistent.


However


average


14.5


year


old hard-


of-hearing


student


correctly


comprehended


only


59% of the unambiguous


sentences.


These


results


were


comparable


to the comprehension


a hear-


year


old.


age of 13 hearing


children


correctly


comprehended


91% of these


unambiguous


sentences.


The authors


noted


that


for the ambiguous


sentences


there


was a


preference


for the B


Readings


both


the hearing


and hard-of-hearing


groups.


This


preference


increased


with


s not present


in col-


--- .. -.


w










Scholes,


to 234 deaf


Cohen,and


students


Brumfield


in grades


press)


- 12 in


administered


a residential


a similar


school


task


for the deaf.


The similarity

hard-of-hearing


of the deaf's

students is


performance


quite


to that


remarkable.


of the public


The deaf


school


comprehended


of the unambiguous


sentences.


For the ambiguous


sentences


there


again


a preference


for the B


Reading


form.


This


might


suggest


that


deaf


, hard-of-hearing,


and hearing


shared


a comprehensional


strategy


bias.


Quigley


and Power


(1972)


began


the development


a Test


of Syntac-


tic Abilities


(TSA)


as part


a total


research


program


to evaluate


com-


prehension


and production


for the following


areas


determiners


, (b)


negation,


question


formation,


pronominalization,


reflexiviza-


tion,


the verb


system,


conj unction,


complementation,


and (i)


relativization.


Subtests


for nominalization


and several


aspects


com-


plementation


were


omitted


from


the final


version


of the TSA


because


authors


reported


little


understanding


of their


usage


18 and 19


year


old deaf


students


even


after


extensive


protesting.


For each


structure


under


investigation


the subject


the subtests


was required


to make


of the TSA

judgments


contained

as to the


written

correct


items

meaning


where

of the


stimulus

sentence


sentences


correct


and/or


determine


it when


necessary.


rammaticalness


The following


of the stimulus

are two examples:


The girl


hit the boy


went


home.


What


happened?


The girl


hit the bo


was










The girl


the girl


found


the ball


played


in the park.


Check


ONE box.


sentence


Right


Go to 2.


Wrong


Change


sentence


to make


it RIGHT.


Write


the right


sentence


here


(Quigley


Smith,


Wilbur


, 1974,


329)


Utilizing


a subtest


of the TSA


Quigley


Wilbur,


and Montanelli


(1974)


investigated


question


formation


the deaf.


Results


indicated


increasing


improvement


for the deaf


with


age.


However


even


youngest


hearing


than


subject t


the majority


n the third grade

of the older deaf


consistently


subjects.


obtained

response


higher


scores


hierarchy


appear


for both


groups


with


the best


comprehension


for yes/no


questions


followed


Wh- questions.


questions


proved


to be the


most


diffi-


cult.


Quigley


Smith


and Wilbur


(1974)


again


employed


subtests


of the


to stud


relativized


sentences


in the deaf.


The clauses


were


classi-


field


according


placement


[final


or medial


(M)]


and (b)


func-


tion


of the relative


pronoun


(subject


or object,


with


or without


a pro-


noun).


Results


of the processing


test


again


demonstrated


a marked


supe-


priority


the 10


year


old hearing


subjects


(83%


correct)


when


compared


with


the 18


year


old deaf


subjects


correct).


For both


groups


hierarchy


of difficult


existed


with


easiest


pronoun


for both


groups










The deaf


showed


mor e


improvement


with


for the final


position


with


correct


at age


as compared


with


only


correct


How-


ever,


increased


performance


with


was not witnessed


for the medial


position

similar


which revealed

to the 10 year


correct


old hearing


at age

subjects


This


response


latter s

s of 68%


core


correct


for the medial


position.


When


presented


with


embedded


sentences


the deaf


frequently


inap-


propriately


deleted


noun


phrase


in the following manner:


"The


chased


the girl


on a


red dress


The deaf


showed


particular


dif-


ficulty with


of possession


the possessive.


"who"


Older


a relative


groups


clause,


accept


and they


also


proper


form


recognized


as incorrect


sentences


where


possessive


was required


present.


However,


they were


also


unable


to recognize


as incorrect


sen-


tences with


possessive


form noun


phrase


where


was


required,


such


helped


the boy'


mo their


was sick.


A study


Davis


and Blasdell


(1975)


revealed


that


the hard-of-


hearing


also


had difficulty with


relative


clauses


purpose


of the


investigation


was to ascertain


certain


perceptual


strategies of


hearing


and hard-of-hearing


children


aged


years.


Sentence


stimuli


of the


following


form were


read


to the children:


man who


chased


the sheep


The children


pointed


to the


appropriate


picture


from


among


a choice


was


'B ss


I'who s e''










N1 VI N2 (The
comprehension


man


chased the sheep).


underlyin


This involved


state


gy -- S -V-0


N2 V2 N3 (The


indi


cated


underlying


ate the


a failure t
sentences.


grass


comprehend


This


either


response
of the 2


N2 VI N1 (The


sheep


the man).


response


refl


ecte


a failure


comprehend


either of


base


sentences


and could have resulted


from


use of


exical


items


as a bas


compre-


hension.(p.


285)


Results


indicated


a quantative


and qualitative


difference


in the


scores


of the


two


groups.


Although


both


groups


placed


more


emphasis


on making


the first


noun


the subject,


this


was more


often


true


for the hearing


group


(92%)


than


for the hard-of-hearing


group


(74%).


Among


the latter


group


there


was also


a marked


tendency


use the confused


strategy


V2 N3)


of takin


the object


of the relative


clause


and making


it the


subject


and using


the verb


noun


immediately


following


as the main


verb


and object.


This


type


response


persisted


in spite


of the fact


that


it necessitated


acceptance


a verb


that


appear


in the


stimulus


sentence.


This


acceptance


a totally


new verb


is important


in that


it in-


dicated


an overwhelming


tendency


of the hearing


impaired


toward


this


type


strategy.


In the Quigley


Smith,


and Wilbur


(1974)


experiment


required


responses


were


yes/no


to several


written


sentences


to determine


correct


perception


the stimulus


sentence.


deaf


might


easily


interpret


in his


sentences


the N2 of the embedded


clause


as the "logical"


subject


of V2.


The following


sentence


provides


an example


from


one of










However,


the overwhelming


preference


for an N2


V2 N3


strategy


obvious


in the above


example


because,


unlike


the Davis


and Blasdell


study


there


no need


to accept


a new verb.


"The


went


home"


more


likely


occur


than


"The


sheep


cut the


grass.


Wilbur,


sub tests


Quigley


of the TSA


and Montanelli


to investigate


(1975)


the deaf


administered

s performance


appropriate

on conjoined


sentences.


Results


indicated


that


production


of conjoined


sentences


more


difficult


than


judgments


of grammaticalness.


For the deaf


subjects


conjoined


subjects


were


easiest


followed


conjoined


objects


and conjoined


verb


phrases.


The general


pattern


of development


again


seemed


to shadow


that


of the hearing


subjects.


However


some


syntactic


deviations


were


found


to be peculiar


to the deaf


and resistant


to im-


provement with


age.


It appeared


that


the deaf


not mastered


a rule


of conjunction


in which


the subjects


of the


two sentences


must


serve


same


function.


In the following


two sentences


"The


kicked


and "The


cat ran away,


it seemed


many


of the deaf


that


the bo


ran away.


To ascertain


the deaf'


performance


on verb


inflections


and auxil-


diaries


Quigley,


Montanelli,


and Wilbur


(1976)


compared


the performance


of deaf


students


ages


- 19


years


with


that


of hearing students with


an age range


of 8


- 10


years


on the following


aspects


of the verb


system:


auxiliary


verbs


tense


sequencing,


verb


deletion,


and the confusion


and "have.


" The


appropriate


sub tests


of TSA


were


employed.


Results


revealed


extreme


difficulty


that


deaf


students


had with


was


cat


was


"be"










than


the 10 year old hearing


subjects.


A hierarchy


of difficulty


tense


could


be observed


which


from


least


to most


difficult was:


simple


past,


future,


present


progressive


, perfective,


and passive.


These


suits


concurred


with


those


which


Wilcox


and Tobin


(1974)


found for


their


younger


hard-of-hearing


students.


Judgments


of grammaticalness


did improve


for the deaf,


but this


was discovered


to be caused


an increased


awareness


the older


deaf


subjects

increased


Even


to judge

ability


if the deaf


incorrect

to recogni

did recogni


sentences as

ze a correct

ze a sentence


ungrammatical


sentence

as being


rather


as being gr

incorrect,


than


"ammatical.

as in verb


deletion,


they


were


quite


often


unable


to supply


a verb


that


was correct


in either


number


or tense.


This


difficulty


was similar


to the results


in the Wilcox


and Tobin


(1974)


study


where


there


was a marked


tendency


to confuse


"have"


and "be.


Summary


of the Review


of Language


Assessment


review


of language


assessment


has indicated


the following:


Language


and cognition may


be unrelated


to the


extent


that


young deaf


and hearing


children


usually


displayed


similar


performances


on elementary


Piagetian


tasks,


and both


groups


had no difficulty with


the semantical


organization


nouns


verbs


and adjectives


if the word


stimuli


were


familiar


to them.


However,


there


was


a question


as to the relationship


of language


cognition


with


an increase


age.


Sinclair-De-Zwart


found


re-










There


was a tendency


for hearing,


hard-of-hearing,


and deaf


to prefer


same


problem


solving


strategies.


a paired


word


test,


all three


groups


preferred


asso-


ciation,


followed


graphemically


similar,


and rhyming


pairs.


a sentence


repetition


task


under


three


experimental


conditions


the hard-of-hearing


and hearing


had the


most


difficulty with


the recall


task.


A tendency


with


an increased


interpretation


Readings


(Ar t


+ N)


for ambiguous


direct


and indirect


object


sen-


tences was


observed


among


the hearing,


hard-of-hear ing,


and deaf.


Although


even


the oldest


deaf


subjects


often


scored


lower


than


youngest


hearing


subjects,


the deaf


appeared


to follow


same


pat-


tern


acquisition


as the hearing


in that


the deaf


did acquire,


although


in many


cases


after


a delay


of several


years,


some


of the earliest


pearing


syntactical


forms:


present


past


tense


pluralization


yes/no


questions


relativized


clauses


in the final


position.


Other


data


indicated


that


some


structures


the deaf


showed


more


than


a gross


delay


but rather


a chance


performance


which


indicated


no valid


knowledge


of the particular


structure


under


scrutiny.


Passives


were


usually


acquired


hearing


children


T










old hearing


child.


Even


age 18,


the deaf


student


performed


correctly


65% for


non-reversable


passives,


60% for reversable


passives,


35% for


agent


deleted


passives.


Indirect


and direct


object


distinctions


were


initially


correctly


comprehend


hard-of-hearing,


through


and deaf


use of the marker


children.


"to"


hearing,


age of 13 the hearing


chil-


dren

tions


had acquired


with


additional


accuracy.


strategies


However,


and could


hard-of-hearing


make


the object


subjects


14.


distinc-

5 years


age comprehended


these


distinctions


with


only


Deaf


children


16.5


years


were


able


to comprehend


only


of these


struc-


tures.


Sentence


comprehension


for certain


question


formations


year


old deaf


subjects


revealed


a correct


performance


70% for


Wh- questions


60% for


tag questions.


For medial


embedded


relativized


clauses


che 19


year


deaf


scored


correct


which


is comparable


to 68%


correct


for a hearing


student


Deviant


strategies


were


observed


in the performances


of the


hard-of-hearing


and deaf


in their


confusion


of the verb


"be"


and "have"


inability


recognize


the need


for the possessive


noun


phrase


"whose"


tendency


to take


the object


of the embedded


relative


accuracy











Previous


syntactic


studies


were


conducted


in either


the graphic


or oral


There


medium which


a possibility


required


that


either


poor


graphic


performance


oral,


resulted


or pointing


more


response.


from


deaf


subject


s difficulty


in expressing


himself


in the required


test


format


rather


than


his lack


of English


syntax.


Tweney


et al.


(1975)


found


no differences


in semantic


categorization


between


deaf


and hearing


subjects


when


the stimuli


were


signed


to the deaf.


If the


same


test


were


given


under


two separate


conditions--one


utilizing


traditional


graphic


stimuli


responses


and the other


condi-


tion


employing


a format


more


indigenous


for the deaf


(signing


and finger


spelling)


for stimuli


presentation


and subject


responses,


scores


would:


answer


questions


as to the


true


linguistic


ability


of the


deaf


for these


items


serve


as a possible


design


for future


linguistic


investi-


gations


with


this


population.


The studies


indicated


that


knowledge


of syntactical


structures


in the deaf

appropriate


could


be classified


or deviant


strategies,


Sto delay

and comply


in acquisition,


absence


usage


of certain


of in-

struc-


tures.


Further


research


with


different


age groups


on language


structures


is needed


to help


ascertain:


which


or all of the above


conditions


is applicable


to specific


structures










Morphological


Assessment


Introduction


The communicative


ability


of the deaf


is examined


again


according


to the linguistic


approach,


but morphology,


rather


than


syntax,


is the


theme


of this


section.


same


questions


posed


in the introduction


section


how does


three


usage


are also


relevant


of morphological


rules


for this


section.


employed


Exactly when and


the hearing


child


cur in the deaf?


Can morphological


performance


the deaf


be enhanced


through


a presentation


response


format


more


indigenous


to the deaf


as in finger


spelling


and/or


signing?


Can performance


on these


specific


morphological


structures


predict


general


communication effectiveness


situations where


AMESLAN


is used?


This


section


includes


the rationale


the Berko


Test


of Morphology


(BTM)


usage


with


various


popu-


lations


Rational


including


the deaf.


for the Use of Nonsense


Syllables


In 1958


Jean


Berko


developed


a classic


study


to assess children's


knowledge


of English


morphology.


In order


to insure


correct


internaliza-


tion


of the English


rule


certain


inflections


she used


nonsense


stimuli


rather


than


real


words.


This


technique


would


eliminate


the possibility


of the child


experience


responding with


with


correct


a particular word.


inflection


For example, if


because


he knew


of previous


that


plural


of witch


was witches


have


simply memorized


that


form.


However,


if he correctly


responded


with


nonsense


word


"gutches"


as the


a:-


as the










Lists


of the


most


commonly


used


vocabulary


of first


grade


children's


conversations


eluded


, compositions,


all of the English


and letters


inflectional


were


studied.


morphemes.


From


These

this


lists


information


the author


decided


wha t


kinds


of extensions


might


be expected


to be made


young


child.


areas


assessed


were


plurals,


past


tense,


third


person


singular


of the verb,


progressives,


comparative


and superlative


of the adjective,


two possessives


of the


noun.


Derivational


compound


words


were


also


included.


When


written


the terminal


letter


may express


several


different


structures


(plural,


third


person


singular,


or possessive).


The spoken


allomorphs


of the letter


I-si,


/-z,


/-*z/)


even


though


syntactically


express


different


structures,


are phonologically


conditioned


identical


with


one another.


Similarly


graphic


inflection


of the regular


past


tense


is "ed"


however


the productive


allomorphs


(I/t/


/-d/


are also


phonologically


conditioned.


An example


for the


past


tense


would


I-ti


after


stems


that


terminate


in voiceless


sounds


as in /p/


, /k/


, /f/,


after


stems


that


as in Ib/


I'


terminate
v/, 1/1,


in voice


, In/


sounds


'~3~


/-ad/


after


stems


tha t


terminate


in /t/,


The progressive


"-ing"


and the adjectives


"-er"


and "-est"


variable.


It should


also


be noted


that


plural


possessive


1-0/


allomorph.


There


is no phonological


difference


singular


are


/tf i


wDtw


-










Also


noted


in the first


graders'


vocabulary


and consequently


tested


Berko were


words


consisting


a free


morpheme


and a derivational


suffix


as in "teacher"


or of


two free


morphemes


as in "blackboard.


" She


felt


that


there


were


enough


examples


to warrant


testing


the diminutive-


affectionate-y,


the adjectival-y,


and the


agentlve-er.


assess


the child


s use of various


morphological


rules


under


differing


phonological


conditions


nonsense


words


were made


which


fol-


lowed


phonolo


ical


rule


usage


in English.


Several


real


English


words


were


also


included


in the


test.


Each


test


plate


included


nonsense


pic tures


a text


which


omitted


the desired


form.


Figure


illustrates


an example


a test


for the plural


allomorph


A plate


similar


to the following


would


be used:


This


a wug.


there


is another


one.


There
There


are two of them.
are two


test


was also


given


to native


adult


speakers


of English.


Their


responses,


which


vary,


were


the criterion


used


in evaluating


the children's


responses


for the derivational


and compound


words.


test


was given


to preschool


and first


grade


children.


Con-


sistencv


. reeularitv.


and simolicitv were


three


main


characteristics of


/-z/


[










The importance


of Berko's


work


in linguistic


investigation


is evi-


dent


the fact


that


other


researchers


have


adapted


and/or


modified


the basic


test


and used


this


instrument


in morphological


studies


with


different


ments


populations.


of morphological


The basic


validity


sophistication


has been


nonsense


words


validated


as measure-


many


studies.


Anisfeld


performance


and Tucker


(1967)


on pluralization


studied


rules


the productive


year


old American


receptive


children.


general


hierarchy


of difficult


emerged


with


the easiest


allophone


being


followed


and finally


Ivimey


(1975)


used


the Berko method


to study


the formulation and


use of


morphological


rules


a large


sample


of London


school


children


between


ages


of 3.5


to 9


years.


His results


were


also


in broad


agree-


ment with


those


of Berko;


the acquisition


process


however


for his


popu-


lation


was much


slower.


The Grammatic


Closure


subtest


of the Illinois


Test


of Psycholin-


guistic


Abilities


(ITPA)


(Kirk,


McCarthy,


Kirk,


1968)


was modeled


directly


after


Berko


s test


but used


meaningful


lexical


items


assess


a child's


productive


competence


for morphological


rules.


This


particular


subtest


of the ITPA


is regarded


many


speech


clinicians


as one of the


subtests


that


actually


measures


what


all of the subtests


claim


appraise--mainly


the evaluation


of language.


There


an excellent


cor-


relation


between


Berko's


test


and the Grammatic


Closure


subtest.


Pettit


and Gillespie


(1975)


compared


the performances


of children


from 3 8


years


on 10


selected


items


from


the Berko


tes


and 10


from


test


--


--










Berry


and Talbott


(Berry,


1966)


published


a language


test


adapted


from Berko which


utilized


nonsense


pictures


and words


a sentence


com-


pletion


task.


Thirty-eight


items


were


used


to explore


the child


ability


to make


use rules


grammar


syntax.


All of the


morphological


inflections


which


were


assessed


in the Berko


test


were


also


incorporated


in the Berry-Talbott


Test


(BTT).


The authors


stated


that


their


test was


limited


to the knowledge


of linguistic


morphology


common


to children


between


years


age.


The plates


are presented


to the child


so that


may see the pic-


tures,


if he is able,


to follow


sentences


that


are read


to him.


attempt


Based


was made


on preliminary


secure


studies


normative


the authors


scores


for various


predicted


levels.


differences


per-


formance


levels


with


so that:


general


success
the 6-y
old I-


full
ear


. the
y complete


-XIV


XX (with


average


-year


sentences


(with


one error);


old child
on Plates


one error);
and allowing


would


the 7-year


one


error


average


child


years


should


be able


sweep


the series I


- XXX.


Vogel


(1977)


found


both


the BTT


and the Grammatic


Closure


subtest


of the ITPA


extremely


valuable


measures


for identifying


children


wer e


good


readers


from


those


were


dyslexic.


Both


tests


were


ministered


and results


indicated


that


the dyslexics


were


significantly


inferior


to the good


readers.


The author


hypothesized


that


difficulty


with


even


simple


morphological


inflections


could


result


in inefficient


use of the


semantic


and syntactic


clues


provided


morphology


V,










learning


pace was


slower


for the latter


population;


however,


the order


acqui


sition was


same


as for the normal


group.


Differ-


ences


favoring


correct


responses


for real


over


nonsense


items


appeared


for both


groups.


The disparity was


greater


for the mentally


retarded


group.


This


result


helped


confirm Berko's


supposition


tha t


there


difference


in application


a rule


a familiar


item and


the general-


ized


application


of this


rule


to unfamiliar


items.


It appeared


that


application


of inflectional


endings


appeared


first


in familiar


contexts


and then,


after


some


time


lapse,


this


rule


could


be extended


to unfamiliar


items.


Dever


and Gardner


(1970)


also


studied


the performance


of normal


and retarded


on Berko' s


tests.


Their


results


supported


those


Newfield and


Schlanger


(1968).


In the above


study


was observed


that


although


some


of the chil-


dren


failed


to supply


correct


morpheme


in the


test


situation,


they


did in fact


use it correctly


in conversational


speech.


In 1972


Dever


presented


a revised


Berko


test


and also


two samples


of free


speech


from


30 educable


mentally


retarded


boys.


Results


revealed


that


although


lexical


items


were


slightly


better


predictors


than


nonsense


items,


both


stimuli


were


poor


indicators


cor-


rect


morphological


usage


spontaneous


speech


for this


population.


No differences


in morphological


structures


in the language


of dis-


advantaged


and advantaged


children


were


found


when


Shriner


and Miner


(1968)


assessed


the groups'


receptive


. .


expressive


performance


on a










The authors


hypothesized


that


when


relevant


variables


such


as IQ


articulation


are controlled


the morphological


abilities measured


their


study may


not be sensitive


enough


discrepancies


between


groups.


The Berko


Test


not been without


criticism.


Some


critics


claim


that


use of


nonsense


syllables


a confusion


factor


and that


actual


language


is better


than


test


results would


indicate.


One of the harshest


criticisms


is the myth


an "ideal"'


or "standard


adult


model.


responses


of Berko's


adults


vary


for the derivational


and compound


words;

items


Gardner


however,

much more


(1970)


other authors

variable than


criticized


have

those


found


the adult


obtained


their version


responses


Berko.


of Berko's


test


Dever


on this


for these

and


point.


They


accepted


and scored


as correct


for the students


of their


teachers


' responses


for those


items


that


occurred


with


a frequency


over


15%.


Ivimey


(1975)


also


found


his adult


models


far from


stable.


He attributed


this


factor


to the increase


in linguistic


sophistication


measured


postschool


education)


so that


greater


deviance was


demonstrated


in manipulation


nonsense


words.


Larson,


Summers,


and Jacquot


(1976)


specifically


criticized


on the ambiguity


of adult


responses.


None


of his adult


models


achieved


a perfect


score


on this


test,


and the majority missed


between


six and


seven


items.


The following


four


items


were missed


more


than


half


of the adults:


the diminutive


of "nad


the derived


word


"nadhouse,


and the


two derived


adjectives


troppv


and "liggv


" The










A further


criticism was


what


Larson


et al.


(1976)


felt


highly

Berry


unrealistic

and Talbott


projected


this


projected

had made.


performance


contention.


levels.)


However


performance


(Refer


scores


to the section


scores


one looked


according


on the BTT


subjects did


of these


at the


errors


to age which


for the


support


made


majority


of the children,


in addition


to the


ones


previously


described,


these


additional


errors


were


on a fairly


high


level


for the BTT.


These


errors

which


include<

require


the plurals


the /-jaz


for the stimulus


allomorph,


items


and the derived


Lutzz"

noun f


and "spuz"


or the stimulus


item


"bine.


When


the higher


adult


mean


scores


were


compared


with


those


of the


children,


the results


a maturational


of other


effect


researchers


was


suggested.


the majority


Correlating


again with


of the children's


responses,


even when


incorrect,


showed


evidence


of regularity


and rule


formation.


Despite


the criticisms


Larson


et al.


(1976)


felt


the BTT


to be


a valuable


tool


in discovering


the evolution


a child


s morphological


development.


Morphological


Studies


of the Deaf


There


has been


only


one widely


reported


study


on the


use of


mor-


phological


and derivational


rules


the deaf.


In 1967


Cooper


assessed


the knowledge


of deaf


children


to apple


inflected


and derivational


suf-


fixes


on an instrument


modeled


on the


test


devised


Berko.


This


test


utilized


nonsense


pictures


and "words


to elicit


the desired


morphological


form.


was











Receptive


knowledge


was ascertained


in the following manner.


animal


was called


a "mogg"


and below


there


were


four


pictures:


one of


moggs,


one of


a single


mogg,


one of a mogg with


a different


animal,


one of


a different


animal.


children


were


asked


to put


on "moggs.


To determine


productive


knowled


the child


was asked


to modify


nonsense


following


words


type:


cued


"This


a picture.


is a man


Under


knows


the picture


to hipp.


was a text


He did it


of the


yester-


day.


What


did he do yesterday?


Yesterday


he (h)


If the sub-


jects


wrote


(h)ipped,


it was


taken


as an indication


that


productive


knowledge


of the


past


tense


existed.


There


were


three


types


of testing


for irregular


inflectional


pat-


terns.


In the first


form


the students


were


given


a picture,


for example,


"mife,


" and


read


that


were


to select


the picture


of the irregular


plural


in this


example


"mives.


" In the second


condition


the students


were


to choose


the word


that


best


completed


a sentence within


a given


context,


for example,


"Mary


has a tife.


Jack


has a tife.


They


both


have


two (tife,


tifes,


tive


, tives)


The regular


or the irregular


form


was scored


as correct.


In the third


condition


the subjects were


required


to complete


a sentence


in a given


context,


for example,


there


was a pic-


ture


an imaginary


animal


named


a "zife"


and there


was


another


picture


two animals


similar


to the first.


The subject


had to complete


sentence:


"Here


are two (


Credit


was given


for the regular


. I S


an "X"


^


I .r


J


r







52


Productive knowledge of derivational words was obtained by requir-


ing the subject to complete a statement,


for example,


"John's dog has


waggs on it.


Waggs are all over the dog.


It is a


dog."


Results indicated


the marked superiority of even the youngest sub-


jects over the average


score


of the 19 year old deaf students.


Patterns


of item difficulty for the deaf students shadowed


that of the hearing


students with performance for the two groups being closest on inflec-


tional items and farthest apart on derivational items.


Hearing females


passed each item clearly and consistently with a corresponding increase


in age.


This was not the


case


for the deaf females where the percentage


for passing each item increased erratically and inconsistently with


chronological


age.


There


was


greater discrepancy when


scores


were com-


pared with chronological


equivalent.


age rather than with mental age or reading


There was an increased tendency for both groups to use the


irregular plural with


age.


Plural nouns and past


tense were the easiest


items.


sive,


Next,


proceeding from least to most difficult were:


superlative adjective,


comparative adjective,


progres-


third person


singular, and 5) derived words.


Cooper's test,

the previous section,


as in several of the syntactic tests reviewed in

was a graphic evaluation, and he thought his test


a promising instrument for


assessing


children's knowledge of certain lan-


guage rules,


however,


he cautioned that although written and spoken


English have many common features,


there is not a


one-to-one correspon-


Al ann~~ rnna I-tc e..,arln, -bnr' I n d-.' nEn.n r, nn e4 nn rn rr










Nonsense


tests


of morphology


adapted


from Berko's


original


test


(1958)


are valid


in measuring


a child


ability


to apply


morphologi-


cal rules


to new


stimuli.


Consistency,


regularity,


and simplicity


three


characteristics


which


are evident


responses


even


if the


response


is incorrect.


These


child'


tests


developmental


of morphology


level


have


proved


in morphological


rule


useful


in assessing


application


and in dif-


ferentiating


among


normal


and other


population


groups


such


as the deaf,


the dyslexics,


and the mentally


retarded.


Children


always


perform


better


on morphological


tests


which


employ


real


rather


than


nonsense


items.


first


demonstrate mor-


phological


usage


with


true


words


and then,


after


some


delay


are able


to extend


this


rule


to unfamiliar


nonsense


words.


Rate


order


of morphological


of acquisition


rule


is preserved.


acquisition


Performance


may vary


is best


but the general


on the inflections


most


frequently


used


and/or


on those


having


the fewest


variants.


With


adults


have


achieved


a certain


degree


of linguistic


sophistication


because


of their


educational


backgrounds


there


a great


variety


responses--especially


for derived


compound


words,


diminutives,


and derived


adjectives.


The BTT has


been


shown


to be


a valid


test


of morphology


are










Cooper's


evaluation


(1967)


was


a paper


and pencil


test.


himself,


cautioned


about


adopting


a one-to-one


correlation


between


graphic


and spoken


language.


Therefore,


a population


like


the deaf,


use visual


and gestural


signals


as their


primary method


of communication,


a test


of morphological


rules


presented


visually


(sign


and finger


spelling)


requiring


a visual


response


would


give


more


valid


information


about


deaf's


knowledge


of morphological


rules


since


the procedure


would


be in


a medium


indigenous


to them.


An administration


of the


same


test


in the traditional


graphic

fects t


manner


he deaf


would


determine


s responses


the extent


and if the


poor


which


medium presentation af-


morphological


performances


could


an artifact


a particular


testing


procedure,


or true


ignorance


the deaf


for certain


morphological


rules.


Statement


of the Problem


purposes


spelled


and signed


of this

English)


research were to


vs.


the graphic


investigate

performance


the visual

of deaf a


(finger


doles-


cents


on linguistic


tasks


using


the BTT


and to investigate


a rela-


tionship


existed


between


these


scores


and judgments


of FC


proficiency.


FC proficiency was


judged


persons


know


edgeable


sign


language


finger


spelling


utilizing


point


Quality


Scale


and a specific


Item


Analysis


Sample


which


contained


the major


and minor


items


of the


story.


The sqnppifin p


wonl s


of this


investi ati on


were:









To determine


a relationship


existed


between BTT


scores


the judged


level


of FC proficiency.


To determine


if linguistic


performance


and/or


FC were


dependent


on any


of the following


variables:


etiology


dB loss


in better


first


language


in the home


persons


at home


can


finger


spell


and/or


sign


when


finger


spelling


first


acquired


number


years


at Florida


School


for the Deaf


and Blind


(FSDB)


reading


level


level


date


of birth


race

sex


other


impaired


family


members


ear

















CHAPTER


METHOD


AND DESIGN


OF THE STUDY


Introduction


This


chapter


contains


the procedures


used


for subject


selection,


the experimental


tasks


performed


the subjects,


reliability


procedures,


and the instruments


utilized


for analysis.


Procedures


Subjects


Thirty


students


were


randomly


selected


from


among


those


who were


attending


the Florida


School


for the Deaf


and Blind


(FSDB)


who met


following


criteria:


a hearing


loss


60 dB


or greater


in the better


ear as the primary


deficit


deaf


from


birth


the acquisition


or prelingually
of speech)


deafened


(before


a performance


score


of 95


or higher


a reading
higher


level


equivalent


to grade


three


a monolingual


English,
mixture


sign


(English)
finger s


home


;pellin


environment
g, and/or s


of all three


an age range


from


- 19


ome










Criteria


one through


six were


obtained


from


school


records.


profile


of the subjects


of this


stud


is in Appendix


Finger


Spelling Ability


Potential


subjects


were


given


a researcher


developed


test


of pic-


ture


naming,


finger


spelling,


in order


to determine


their


ability


to finger


spell.


a subject


failed


this


task


he would


have


been


auto-


matically


disqualified


from


the investigation


and another


student,


pos-


sessing

given t


the desired


he Finger


criteria,


Spelling


would


Test.


have


Words


been


ranged


randomly


selected


in difficulty


from


and

the


very


easy


everyday


ones


which


would


be familiar


a first


grader,


increasingly


difficult


and less


encountered


ones.


most


difficult


were


nonsense


pictures


where


the "names"


consisted


of letter


configura-


tions

tures

test,


uncommon to the Englis

the subject was shown

instructions, procedure


language.


the written

al protocol,


Naturally for the


name.


nonsense


See Appendix B


and scoring


methods.


plc-


for the

A passing


criterion


level


of 75%


correct


was selected.


Tasks


Each


student


responded


to the graphic


form


of the BTT


and the


manual


form


of the BTT.


They


also


retold


a simple


paragraph


story


any manner


they


preferred.


sequence


of these


three


procedural


tasks


was randomized


for each


subject


to minimize


the possible


order


effect.


Each


testing


session


was individually


conduct ted


a quiet


room during









to make


any mechanical


adjustments


on the instruments


utilized,


such


rewinding


of the video


presentation


tape


or changing


tape


used


filming


the subjects.


BTT Graphic


Each


subject


responded


to 38 questions.


nonsense


words


stimuli

form.


were presented o

In some instances


n 30 plates w

two stimulus


which

item


had been ma

s appeared


into


on a sin


a booklet

gle plate.


Instructions


Talbott


were


Language


in accordance


Tests


with


Comprehension


the published


of Grammar


protocol


(Berry,


the Berry-


1966).


first


two items


were


reviewed


with


the subjects


until


the examiner was


certain


that


nature


of the task


was understood.


For succeeding


items


the child


read


the stimulus


material,


responded


graphically


on his


answer


sheet,


and proceeded


to the


nex t


page.


There


was no time


limit


for this


task.


Samples


test


stimuli,


instructions,


answer


sheets


be found


in Appendix


BTT Manual


From


previous


visits


and conversations


with


students


and staff


at FSDB


was discovered


that


some


of their


signs


were


slightly


dif-


ferent


from


those


which


would


be used


in the manual


(visual)


presenta-


tion.


signs


Therefore,


was presented


to avoid


to each


possible


subject


confusion,


before


a written


the video


list


viewing.


of these


sub-


ject


provided


the examiner


with


his sign


for a particular


word


given


the sign


he would


see on the video


tape.


was










subjects


knew


that


exact,


correct


spelling


of the stimuli


word


not important


but that


some


finger


spelled


response


to each


item was


expected.


The standard


directions,


procedures,


sentences


nonsense


stimuli


utilized


for the Graphic


BTT were


presented


on a split-screen


19 inch


video monitor


(Sony,


192-U).


On one-half


of the


screen was


a pic-


ture


of the


nonsense


stimuli.


This


plate


remained


constant while


the other


half


of the


screen


examiner


used


signed


English and


finger


spelling


to communicate


the standard


graphic


stimuli


of the BTT.


only


procedural


difference


between


raphic


and manual


pres


entations


was that


in the letter task


the subject


had a 10 second


interval


to finger


spell


response.


There


were


no repeats


of stimulus


items


once


test


had begun.


The subjects


were


seated


about


feet


from


the monitor.


A micro-


phone was


placed


in front


of the child


to record


vocalizations.


students


saw and, if capable


heard


same


video


tape


film


of the


test


which


had been


filmed


on a portable


video


camera


(Sony


3210).


Video


recordings


of the finger


spelled


responses


of all subjects


were


made


for later


scoring.


The signs


reviewed


prior


to the film


presentation


and additional


instructions


are found


in Appendix


FC Task


The subjects


were


given


a story


(Form A-G)


from


Gra y


Oral


was










story


in any manner


they wished.


Instructions


were


presented


graphic,


oral,


and signed


English


form.


Video


recordings


of all stories


were made.


If the student


inquired


about


a particular


vocabulary word


the examiner


explained


This


task


placed


no time


limits


on either


the reading


of the


passage


itself


or on its communication


the subject.


See Appendix


D for the instructions


given


and the paragraph


taken


from


the (GORT).


Scoring


Criterion


BTT Graphic


and Manual


This


investigation


was


concerned


with


concept


conveyed


cer-


tain


English


morphemes


as in several


previous


studies,


production


of particular


allomorphs


for the


same


morpheme.


Therefore,


indication


that


the subject


did demonstrate


appropriate


knowledge


for the required


morpheme


was scored


as correct.


For example,


were


both


considered


as correct


responses


for the plural


and in


same


manner


"ed"


and/or


"led"


were


considered


as correct


for the


past


tense.


For the diminutive


and compound


words


the adult


models


of Berko


were


utilized.


Derived


adjectives


nouns,


comparatives,


superlatives,


possessives


were


scored


correct


only


when


the traditional


English


morphemes


were


produced.


For example,


even


if the subject


displayed


sign


language


or finger


spelling


that


he understood


the difference


tween


the comparative


and superlative


but failed


to finer


sell


V--










The experimenter


scored


all Graphic


and Manual


responses.


order


to establish


an index


of reliability


of the ratings


a hearing,


col-


lege


student


spelling


also


of deaf


scored


parents


Graphic


was familiar with


and Manual


signs


items.


was


and finger


previously


given


a short


training


session


so that


he would


be familiar


with


scoring


criterion.


These


responses


were


then


compared


with


those


of the


investigator.


tests


scored


the second


rater were


composites


responses


from all


of the subjects.


experimenter


rank


ordered


each


subject's


test


scores


for both


the Graphic


and Manual


performances.


Graphic


and manual


test


scores


were


very


disparate


some


subjects.


Therefore,


it could


not be assumed


that


because


someone


achieved


a certain


score


one medium


that


he would


perform


similarly


in the other medium.


After


rank


ordering


two sets


scores,


the highest


scores


each


medium


were


designated


as the high


Graphic


and high


Manual


groups.


next


10 highest


scores


for each medium were


designated


the medium Graphic


and medium Manual


groups.


Finally


the lowest


scores


for each medium were


defined


respectively


as the low Graphic


Manual


groups.


The subjects


from


each


group were


assigned


from


through


items


of the total


38 items


of the BTT.


This


procedure


resulted


in six com-


posite


tests


of which


three


were


graphic


and three


were


manual.


each


medium


there


was a separate


test


for the high


medium,


and low


erouDS.


(ThP


C 9m


1-irn a


of video


recorder


utilized


for the previous


***,*L ULtJLtI~ tV '


U










Overall

for the high


for both


manual

category


the medium


differences


ratings


resulted


an agreement

an agreement


and low categories


in level


agreement


showed


between


Manual

Manual


a .97 level


high,


ratings

ratings


agreement.


and the medium and


low categories


a good


illustration


of the fleeting


nature


of finger


spelling.


For example,


many


of the subjects


in the high


category


used


the sign


for the


possessive


which,


unless


particularly


emphasized,


very


difficult


to determine


as to whether


singular


or plural


possession


is indicated.


Hence,


a value


judgment


had to be made.


None


of the sub-


jects


in the medium and


low categories


showed


knowledge


of the


posses-


sive


so this


value


judgment


was not necessary.


A normal


z-test


for difference


in proportions


indicated


that


there


a significant


difference


between


the graphic


and manual


ratings


.05 level


with


being


equal


to 2


FC Rating


groups


each


containing


three


judges


viewed


and rated


stu-


dents'


functional


in signing,


finger


communication


spellin


stores.


and English.


All of the judged


Since


were


they were also


fluent

employed


in various


capacities


with


FSDB,


were


familiar


with


any expressions


or signs


which might


be colloquial


to that


specific


geographical


loca-


tion


and population.


Each


of the


groups


contained


one hearing,


deaf


one hard-of-hearing


judge.


Both


groups


saw the


same


stories;


however,


in order


to avoid


a possible


order


effect


appear-


was


one










All of the judges


received


their


instructions


(orally,


manually,


and graphically)


during


same


session.


However,


each


group


indivi-


dually


scored


own film.


Because


of the rapidity


of the material


be scored,


groups


saw their


same


films


a second


time


a few hours


after


their


first


viewing.


They were


given abbreviated


instructions


were


allowed


to make


changes


from


their


previous


observations.


The judges


were


given


a rating


sheet which


assessed


three


dimen-


sions


of communication.


was on this


sheet


where


marked


their


observations.


Part A


assessed


overall


communicative


efficiency


and the


quality


convey


general


concepts


on a


categorical


scale


of 1


- 5.


This


was the Quality


Score.


Part


contained


an item


analysis


for specific


main


and detail


ideas


of the


story.


Items


were


scored


according


point


system.


score


of 3


indicated


the judge


was confident


that


the idea


was con-


veyed


in its entirety,


a score


of 2


indicated


that


the judge


thought


the idea


to be partially


presented,


a score


of 1


indicated


that


the judge


was certain


that


the idea


was


completely


absent.


In Part


the ratio


a student's


finger


spelling


to signing


preferences


in communication


was


rated.


The scale


ranged


from 1


(al-


most


total


finger


spelling)


to 5


(almost


total


signing).


(See


Appendix


for instructions


and the Functional


Communication


Evaluation


Sheet.)


In order


to obtain


an index


of reliability


for the ratings


of the


Evaluation


the following


Were


there


three


differences


questions


between


had to be determined:


the six correlation










there


matrices


a difference
corresponding


between
of each


two correlation


group


(order


effect)


for the judges?


The correlation


between


Theme


and Quality


for all three


of the


above


questions


was analyzed


using


"Fisher'


transformation


proximate


normality"


(Bruning


Kintz


, 1968).


An "H"


test


homogeneity o

The "H"


if correlations


statistic


(Mendenha li,


revealed


1968)


nonsignificant


was then


applied.


differences:


among


the six individual


judges,


among


type


of judge,


or between


groups


of judges.


Furthermore,


since


each


of the


tests


for the three


questions


was performed


at the


.01 level


of significance,


the overall


sum


level


less


than


This


indicated


similar


judgments


raters,


hearing


type,


group.


can therefore


be inferred


that


for this


evaluation


FC ratings werereliable.


Analysis


To determine


whether


a method


of presentation


response


(graphic


or manual)


t-test


would


for related


influence

d pairs w


the linguistic


as utilized


performances


(Mendenhall,


of the deaf


1975).


In order


answer


questions


two and three


of the Problem State-


ment,


a single


measurement


for FC proficiency was


needed


so that


corre-


lations


between


this


measurement


and Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and demo-


graphic


data


could


be computed.


The logical measurement


for FC would


be the


average


ratings


of the


iudr~es


on the overall


a A mnn A


Onal i tv


Sc ror


Thic


Tnnll 1 d


was


sn~ nnnrl


I


,


I1C











The Statistical


Analysis


System


(SAS)


Forward


Stepwise


Procedure


(Service,


1972)


selected


an 11 variable


model


for the dependent


variable,


Quality.


This


Stepwise


Procedure


first


selected


the variable


that


pre-


dicted


most


of the variance


for the dependent


variable


this


case,


Quality).


The procedure


then


continued


to select


next


most


important


variable


responsible


for variance


of the dependent


variable.


The addi-


tion o

tinued


f each

until


new variable


consequent


all of the independent


formation


variables


were


a new model


included


con-


this


case


the main


and detail


ideas


and Theme


of the FC


Evaluation


Sheet).


Probability


levels,


and F-ratios


for each


of the models


were


also


determined


the Forward


Stepwise


Procedure.


The 11 variable


model


for Quality


had an R2


.98 with


all factors


except


Theme


statistically


significant


at the .01 level,


F(29,18)


89.53,


The significant


factors


were


main


topics


A,B,D,E,


details


A-F.


These


factors


wer e


needed


to predict


the Quality


Score,


it appears


that


the judges, on


average,


carefully


considered


those


factors


in determining


their


Quality


Score.


It is thus


inferred


that


the Quality


Score


a good


measurement


of FC proficiency.


Refer


to Tables


and 2


at the end of this


section


for the SAS


model


the identification


of the variables


chosen,


their


occurrence


in the paragraph


which


the students


read.


To determine


whether


a relationship


existed


between


the BTT


scores


(graphic


and manual)


and the judged


level


of FC,


the variables,


as in-


--










sign,


when


finger


spelling was


first


acquired,


number


years


FSDB,


reading


level,


age,


race,


sex,


and other


impaired


family


mem-


bers)


its significance


to the Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and FC


models


determined


the Forward


Stepwise


Procedure


the SAS.


of the three


mode is


the demographic


variables


were


considered


sig-


nificant


at the .05 level


or higher.







67


Table 1

Stepwise Regression Model for the Dependent Variable, Quality Score,


as Selected by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of


the SAS


= 0.9820


F RATIO


= 89.53


PROBABILITY


0.0001


VARIABLES F RATIO PROBABILITY- F


Theme Score


2.05


Main Topic A


0.1690


7.74


Main Topic B


0.0123**


6.67


Main Topic D


0.0188**


31.14


Main Topic E


0. 0001**


11.30


Detail A


0.0035**


10.90


Detail B


0.0040**


8.54


Detail C


0.0091**


38.18


Detail D


0. 0001**


6.64


Detail E


0.0190**


9.86


0.0057**


Tn~t-n-f P 7I nnJ


17 ~e


n nnnrri






68


Table


Theme


Functional


Main


Topics,


Communication


and Detail
Evaluation:


Topics


Part


from


Item Analysis


THEME:


Airplane


pilots


have many


jobs.


MAIN TOPICS DETAIL TOPICS


A:**


transportation


between


cities


of people


of freight

of mail


rescues


D:**


at land


sea


dropping


bringing


food


to hungry

to hungry


znimals


zoos


people

animals


from


act as traffic


police


spot


speeding


cars


on the highway


* Significant
** Significant


.05 level
.01 level


F:-k-k


B:jtft


B:**


D:**


E:Jt*

















CHAPTER


RESULTS


Introduction


Data


concerning


the linguistic


performance


on the Graphic


Manual


BTT are presented


in the initial


section


of this


chapter.


Corre-


national data


among


Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and judged


level


of PC


are found


in the second


section.


Particular


demographic


data are pre-


sented


in the final


section.


Because


the interaction


among


some


these


variables


was of


interest,


there


some


overlap


introduced


the various


tables.


Consequently,


Tables


through


are collectively


presented


at the end of this


chapter.


Linguistic


Performance


on Graphic


and Manual


A paired


difference


t-statistic


revealed


that


there


was a signi-


ficant

manual


difference

presentation


in linguistic


responses.


performance


The -3.59


dependent


on graphic


t-statistic


indicated


a difference


in average


test


scores


for the


two methods


at the


.05 level


of significance.


negative


t-statistic


indicated


that


average


test


scores


for the Graphic


method


are significantly


higher


than


those


the Manual


method.


Table


shows


the subjects


individual


scores


.9 f. .- C


- 1 /^ 1


rr










18.33.


range


for manual


performance


was


- 30 with


a mean


of 15.93.


The transient


nature


of finger


spelling


as well


as the timed


response


period


graphic


allowed


medium.


may be responsible


Nevertheless,


for the better


be inferred


performance


that


with


for linguistic


tasks


of this


type


a graphic


presentation


a valid


procedural


method


for assessing


the linguistic


ability


of the deaf.


Correlations


Amon g


Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and the


Judged


Level


of FC Proficien


Correlations


among


the Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and the judged


level


of FC proficiency were


of the SAS.


Graphic


The information


and Manual


obtained

in Table


scores


from


the linear


indicates


.79 which


regression model


a correlation


is statistically


between


signi-


ficant


at the


.01 level.


This


not surprising


considering


that


same


test


and protocol


had been


utilized


with


the only manipulated


variables


being


those


presentation


response.


These


scores may


also


be viewed


in regard


to the ability


of the deaf


to perform


a similar


manner


two en-


tirely

dures


different

necessary


communication modes.


for a visual


Thus


presentation and


the elaborate


response


testing


would


proce-


not be


necessary


in order


to obtain


a measurement


of linguistic


competence


similar


to the


one utilized


in this


study.


Table


reveals


a correlation


.55 between


the Graphic


score


and the quality


score


which


has a statistically


significance










correlation


between


a significance


the Manual


level


Thus


scores


Manual


and quality


scores


scores


and qual-


scores


lacked


statistical


significance


at the .05 level.


However,


.09 significance


level


might


suggest


some


investigators


that


Manual


scores


should


not be completely


discounted.


summary,


Graphic


and Manual


scores


were


significantly


cor-


related


at the


.01 level.


Similarly,


Graphic


scores


and FC


quality


scores were


correlated


at the


.01 level.


However


Manual


scores


and FC


quality


scores


were


not statistical


significant


at the


level.


can therefore


be inferred


that


the Graphic


BTT may


be used


as a predictor


of FC


quality.


Demographic


Data


Linear


regression models,


as selected


the Forward


Stepwise


Procedure


of the SAS


were


used


for all of the independent


demographic


variables.


Each


variable


was


invest


ated


for its contribution


to the


following models:


the dependent


variable


Graphic


BTT,


the dependent


variable Manual


BTT,


and the dependent


variable


The best


linear


regression model


for the Graphic


(Table


explained


63% of


the total


variance


in graphic


scores;


the manual


model


(Table


explained


60% of the total


variance


in manual


scores;


the FC


model


(Table


explained


80% of the total


score


variance.


Cri-


terion


entry


a particular


demographic


variable


into a


model


a minimum


significance


level


was


was










etiology was


found


to be the following:


- unknown,


- rubella,


- birth


trauma,


- heredity


- meningitis,


- Rh factor,


- en-


cephalitis.


The above


seven


levels


of the variable


etiology were


analyzed


a dichotomous-comparison


format.


For example,


the rubella


factor was


compared


against


all of the other


six etiologies


or the hereditary


factor


compared


against


The factor


all six of the remaining


of heredity was


included


etiological


in the Manual


factors.


BTT model,


F(29


= 8.45,


ficantly


contributes


can then


a positive


be inferred


performance


that


heredity


on the Manual


BTT.


signi-


This


result


further


supports


find in


gs of previous


investigators


that


deaf


children


of deaf


parents,


thus


have


an early


exposure


to a manual


communication


system,


perform


better


than


deaf


children


of hearing


parents


are denied


this


earl


exposure.


Encephalitis


was included


in the FC model,


F(29


= 5.19,


However,


there


was


only


one subject


whose


etiology was


that


of encephalitis


so the correlation


with


should


be assessed


with


that


factor


in mind.


dB Loss


According


to Silverman


(1971)


term


"deaf"


is used


for chil-


dren


"who do


not have


sufficient


residual


hearing


to enable


them


understand


speech


successfully


even


with


a hearing


without


special


instruction"


399).


He used


Huizing


s classification


(1953)


which


was









Grade

Grade


III:


60 90 dB

More than
understand


= severe


loss


90 dB = deaf
ing ability)


speech
401).


The subjects


in this


investigation


had a dB loss


ranging


from


118 (94.97)


in the better


ear.


The obvious


conclusion


is that


all sub-


jects


were


severely


hearing


impaired.


For both


the Graphic


and Manual


BTT models


the variable


dB loss


was not


even


included


in the model.


This


would


concur


with


the results


of other


investigations


which


found


this


variable


(for


the severely


hearing


impaired)


to be insignificant


for academic


success.


However


in the FC model


this


variable was


statistically


significant,


F(29,15)


5.90


Other


studies


of signing


in the deaf


have


been more


con-


cerned


with


properties


of the communication medium


itself


and have


not, to my


knowled


ge, investigated


the specific


amount


of loss


once


was ascertained


that


the subject was


deaf.


Reading


Level


The main


records


reading


on the Stanford


level


of the subj


Achievement


Test


ects,

(SAT)


obtained f

. revealed


rom


a s


the school'

core of 5.3


(fifth


year,


third month)


with


a standard


deviation


of 2.3.


indi-


vidual


levels


ranged


from


- 9.9.


Readin


on the Graphic


level


was the only


BTT F(29,19)


variable


= 6.47


of statistical


On the Manu


significance

al BTT model


reading


level


was again


most


statistical


significant variable,


F(29,


= 17.59,


fact


that


read in


level


was also









have


also


found


reading


level


to be


one of the


most


important


variables


for high


linguistic


performance.


When


Finger


Spelling


First


Acquired


Finger


spelling


acquisition


ranged


from


almost


at birth


cases


of de

cally

This


af


children


significant

significance


researchers


which


of deaf


parents)


in the Manual


is in agreement

stressed early


age i

model,


with th

exposure


This


F(29,23)


e data


variable was


= 4.95,


collected


to finger


spelling


statisti-


<.05.


previous

for its


maximum


benefit


for the deaf's


communication


to be achieved.


The subjects


for this


investigation


ranged


from 16


- 18.


The median


was 17.13


years


with


a standard


deviation


Only


for the Manual


was


this


variable


statistically


signifi-


cant,


F(29,23)


, f<


With


the subjects'


ages


so close


gether


it is difficult


to discern


this


should


be such


a significant


variable


and only


for the Manual


model.


First


Language


in the Home


English


was the primary


language


in the home


for 27 students.


Sign


was the primary


language


two students,


one student


reported


a combination of


English


and sign


as the language


of the home.


These


three


levels


of the variable


first


home


language were


analyzed


a dichotomous-comparison


format


where


no level


reached


the signifi-










Other


Hearing


Impaired


Family


Members


From


among


all of the students


in this


study


only


subjects


ported


that


other


members


of their


immediate


family


were


hearing


paired.


This


variable


lacked


significance


for all three


models.


number


subjects


included


in this


variable may


one of the


reasons


was statistically


insignificant.


Persons


at Home


Can Finger


Spell


and/or


Sign


The above


variable


contained


three


levels


which were


analyzed


a dichotomous-comparison


format where


no level


attained


statistical


significance


for any model.


No manual


communication


at home


ported


10 students,


13 reported


some


manual


communication,


and 7


ported


that


manual


communication


was frequent


at home.


The lack


of significance


for the last


three


variables


cited--first


language


in the home,


other


hearing


impaired


family


members,


persons


home


can finger


spell


and/or


sign--may


all lack


significance


similar


reasons.


The subjects


in this


study were


older


students


lived


in the institutionalized


environment


of FSDB


where


everyone


finger


spelled


and signed.


There


would


be the possibility


that


the effect


the family was


replaced


that


a peer


group.


Number


of Years


of Attendance


at FSDB


The administrators


and school


records


assured


the researcher


that


all of the subjects


had had


some


prior


educational


experience


if they


had entered


FSDB


later


than age 4


or 5--which


is the earliest


program


re-


was


re-


re-


w-









This


variable


was


included


in both


the Graphic


FC models


but at statistically


insignificant


levels.


The fact


that


years


tendance


was complete


excluded


from


the Manual


could


a possible


argument


that


this


variable


had no statistical


significance


relative


to performance


on the tasks


of this


investigation.


The subjects


Ic?


scores


, when measured


on the performance


test


of the Wechsler


Test


of Intelligence


(wIsc)


yielded


a range


of 95


- 133


with


a mean


of 112.53


and a standard


deviation


of 10.05.


This


variable


was found


to be insignificant


for all three models.


Other


investigators


have


also


found


little


significance


between


performance


on linguistic


tasks.


Race


There were


26 white


subjects


and 4


black


subjects.


This


variable


insignificant


for all three


models


thus


can be inferred


that


race


was not a significant


variable


for the tasks


of this


investigation.


There


were


21 male


and 9


female


subjects


in this


investigation.


This


variable


not meet


the .50 significance


level


even


entrance


into


the three models.


Summary


of Results


r -, *6


at-


was


mI


r


r









The methods


presentation


and response--graphic


and manual--


of the BTT


did influence


the linguistic


performance


the deaf.


Graphic


scores


were


higher


than


the Manual


scores


at the statisti-


cally


significance


level


Graphic


scores


and the judged


level


of FC proficiency


were


highly


correlated


at the statistically


significant


level


However,


correlations


between Manual


scores


and FC proficiency were


statistically


insignificant


at the


.05 level


of confidence.


Graphic


scores


and Manual


scores


were


both


significantly


correlated


at the


.01 level.


The particular


demographic


variables


which


significantly


fluenced


performance


on the Graphic


BTT,


Manual


BTT,


and FC were:


Graphic


Reading


level


(significant


at the


.01 level)


Manual


Reading


level


(significant


at the


.01 level)


Etiology--Heredity


(significant


at the


.01 level)


significant


at the .01 level)


.05 1


f Learning
evel)


Finger


Spelling


(significant


at the


Rating


Reading


Level


(significant


at the .01 level)


dB Loss


(significant


at the .05 level)


Ft-i nl nv7--Fnr'pnhnl I ti


(I c nij i f-i an t


at the 0-5 level)






78


Table 3

Subjects' Individual Scores for the
Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC Ratings


SUBJECT


GRAPHIC BTTa


MANUAL BTTb


FC RATINGc


2.66

2.33

3.16

3.00

2.66

1.33

1.00

3.33

2.00

2.00

3.16

4.30

2.66

4.00

2.83

3.00

3.83

2.83










Table 3


- continued


SUBJECT


GRAPHIC BTTa


MANUAL BTTb


FC RATINGc


3.00


2.83


4.66


1.00


4.16


1.16


1.50


1.00


4.33


2.33


score out of a possible 38 correct
score out of a possible 38 correct


average of


judge


ratings on


a scale from 1





80


Table 4


Mean,


Standard


for the
Obtained


Graphic
from the


Deviation,


BTT,
Linea


Minimum


Manual BTT,
r Regression


and Maximum


and FC
Model


ores


Tasks


of the SAS


VARIABLES


MEAN


STANDARD
DEVIATION


MINIMUM


MAXIMUM


Graphic


a
18.9333


5.3777


.0000


33.0000


Manual


BTTb


15.9333


.9302


4.0000


30.0000


2.7193


1.1135


1.0000


4.6600


scale


a
total
b
total
Based
range


38 items


items


on Quality


Score


which


had a 1


(very


poor)


to 5


(very


good)






81


Table


Correlation Coefficients among
the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT,and FC Scores
as Shown by the Correlation Procedure of the


VARIABLES


GRAPHIC BTT


MANUAL BTT


Graphic BTT


1.00000
0.00000


0.79545
0.00010**


0.55112
0.00160**


Manual BTT


0.79545
0.00010**


1.00000
0.00000


0.31372
0.09140


0.55112
0. 00160**


0.31372
0.09140


1.00000
0.00000


* Significant at
** Significant at


.05 level
.01 level






82


Table


Linear Regression Model
as Selected by the


for the Dependent


Forward


Stepwise


Variable,


Procedure


Graphic


BTT,


of the SAS


.6387


RATIO


PROBABILITY


0.0111


VARIABLES F RATIO PROBABILITY> F


of Learning


Finger


Spelling


1.78


0.1975


Years A


Reading


attending


FSDB


0.4008


Level


6.47


0.0198**


0.1727


Race


1.06


.3160


Etiology


Etiology


- Unknown


2.46


- Rubella


0.1333


1.29


0.2703


Deaf


at Birth


0.4671


No Manual


Communication


at Home


2.25


0.1504


Finger


Spelling


to Sign


Ratio


1.06


0.3153






83


Table


Linear


Regression Model


for the Dependent


Variable,


Manual


BTT,


as Selected


the Forward


Stepwise


Procedure


of the SAS


= 0.6013


RATIO


= 5.78


PROBABILITY


0.0009


VARIABLES


RATIO


PROBABILITY> F


of Learning


Finger


Spelling


4.93


0.0365*


Reading


Level


17.59


0.0003**


2.14


0.1567


0.0129**


Etiology


- Heredity


8.45


0.0080**


No Manual


Communication


at Home


1.58


0.2083


* Significant
** Significant


.05 level
.01 level






84


Table


Linear


Regression Model


for the Dependent


Variable,


(Utilizing
as Selected by


Quality


Score


the Forward


as the Unit


Stepwise


Meas


Procedure


ure)


of the SAS


= 0.8002


RATIO


= 4.29


PROBABILITY


0.0041


VARIABLES F RATIO PROBABILITYy F


of Learning


Finger


Spelling


0.42


0.5279


Years A


Reading


attending


FSDB


0.4090


Level


10.62


0. 0053**


2.12


0.1658


Other


Hearing


Impaired


in Family


0.3267


Etiology


- Heredity


3.49


0.0816


Etiology


- Rubella


1.39


0.2565


Deaf


at Birth


0.4304


Some Manual


Communication


at Home


.3425


dB Loss


5.90


0.0282*









Table


- continued


= 0.8002


RATIO =


4.29


PROBABILITY


0.0041


VARIABLES F RATIO PROBABILITY F


Etiology


- Encephalitis


5.19


.0378*


Presentation


Order


of Tasks


1.33


0.2670


* Significant
** Significant


.05 1
.01 1


evel
evel

















CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION


Discussion of the results of


this investigation is designed so


that the major findings relating to the two specific research questions

(linguistic presentation methods and possible relationships between


specific linguistic scores and


the functional communicative effective-


ness of AMESLAN)


are presented first.


The influence of demographic


factors is later introduced.


Finally,


suggestions for language inter-


vention and implications for future research are presented.


Morphological Assessment


Introduction


The linguistic performance of the deaf


as a result of


two presenta-


tion methods was the initial research question.

was to determine if written linguistic tasks ad


The primary objective


[equately reflect the


deaf's linguistic knowledge or is their poor performance a reflection

of their difficulty with the medium of presentation rather than with

the material itself?


Graphic and Manual BTT


A aired difference t-statistic revealed a significant difference










inferred

hension


that


for investigations


of graphically


presented


of this t

materials


ype


assessments


provide


valid,


of the

indeed


compre-

superior,


indications


of linguistic


competency


of traditional


English


the deaf.


Discussion


Among


the interesting


and plausible


hypotheses


for the above


suits


are error


hierarchy,


nature


of the


test


format,


and specific


types


errors.


These


topics


are discussed


in the following


section.


Hierarchy


of Errors


An analysis


errors


for this


study


revealed


a hierarchy


of item


difficulty


similar


to that


of Cooper


s (1967)


investigation


(see


Chap-


ter II,


Morphological


Research).


In this


investigation,


as in Cooper


(1967)


plural


nouns


past


tense


were


also


found


to be the easiest


items


and the derivational


items


most


deviant.


The four


items


which


wer e


missed


by more


than


half


of Larson


et al.'s


(1976)


adult


models


(derived


words:


diminutive,


compound,


ajentive,


adjective)


were


also


incorrect


for the vast majority


of the FSDB


students.


Table


shows


the morphological


hierarchy


according


to percentages


correct

trates


for both


the graphic


percentages


correct


and manual

t for each


presentations.

morphological


Table


structure


illus-

accord-


int to the graphic


and manual


procedures.


Plurals


past


tense


were


apparently


the easiest


items.


Gener-


ally


both


graphic


and manual


presentations


followed


same


hierarchy


but with


the manual


scores


far more


depressed


than


the 2raPhic


scores.


re-







88


Table 7


Hierarchy According to Percentages


Correct


for Graphic BTT and Manual BTT


ORDER GRAPHIC BTT % CORRECT ORDER MANUAL BTT % CORRECT


Plurals

Past Tense

Progressive

Possessive
Singular

Third Person
Singular

Adjective
Superlative

Adjective
Comparative

Possessive


Plurals

Past Tense

Progressive

Adjective
Superlative

Possessive
Plural

Adjective
Comparative

Third Person
Singular

Possessive


Plural


Singular


.008


Derived Word


Derived Word


N[ajentive(-er)]


Derived Word


Adjective


N[ajentive(-er) ]


Derived Word
N(diminutive)


.006


.006


.006


Derived Word
N (diminutive)


Derived Word
N(compound)


.003


.002


Derived Word
N(compound)


Derived Word


Adjective








Table 8

Percentages Correct for Morphological Structures
for Graphic BTT and Manual BTT


GRAPHIC BTT STRUCTURE MANUAL BTT


Plural


Past Tense


Progressive


Comparative Adjectives
.17 Superlative .18
.13 Comparative .13


Possession
Singular
Plural


.158


.008
.15


.133


.13
0
.003


Derived Nouns
Ajentive(-er)
Compound
Diminutive


.014


.006
.002.
.006


.006


Derived Adjective










formation


of the compound


word


(.002


correct)


as compared


with


the graphic


score


correct)


for the


same


structure


and for plural


possession


correct


Nature


as opposed


the Test


.01 correct).


Format


This


section


a comparison


between


the properties


inherent


the graphic


and manual


test


presentations


which


could


account


for the


superior


graphic


performances.


of finger


spelling


acquisition.


Al though


finger


spelling


employed


in classroom


instruction


at FSDB


, the


age of finger


spelling


acquisition


the subjects


varied


from


early


infancy


importance


of early


exposure


to finger


spelling


and its beneficial


pact


on later


communication


and educational


achievement


has been


well


documented


(Hoemann,


1974;


Hoemann,


Andrews,


Florian,


Hoemann


Jensema,


1976;


Quigley,


1969).


Not only


finger


spelling


any systematic,


intensive


language


exposure


at the preschool


level


has been


found


beneficial


for later


scholastic


achievement


(Sarachan-Deily


Love,


1974).


Nature


of finger


spelling.


Transient


and ephemeral


qualities


characteristic


of finger


spelling


and signed


English


(Fisher


Husa,


1973).


These


variables


demand


much


visual


alertness


and concentration.


It was


perceived


the experimenter


in this


study


that


in the majority


of cases, if

the subject,


the crucial

his manual


nonsense

response


stimuli


or question


was incorrect.


This


was not seen

was observed


are




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EYKGW1A2S_HF1MCQ INGEST_TIME 2011-08-09T15:10:15Z PACKAGE AA00002203_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

0253+2/2*< $1' )81&7,21$/ &20081,&$7,21 2) 7+( '($) %\ 6+$1121 0$85((1 %580),(/' $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ 6KDQQRQ 0DXUHHQ %UXPILHOG

PAGE 3

7R P\ YHU\ VSHFLDO IULHQGV 'U DQG 0UV )UHG %UXPILHOG

PAGE 4

$&.12:/('*0(176 ZRXOG OLNH WR H[SUHVV DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR DOO PHPEHUV RI P\ VXSHUn YLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH IRU WKHLU JXLGDQFH VXJJHVWLRQV DQG VXSSRUW ZKLFK PDGH WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ SRVVLEOH $ YHU\ VSHFLDO WKDQN \RX WR P\ FKDLUPDQ LQ DEVHQWLD 'U (GZDUG & +XWFKLQVRQ IRU DFDGHPLF DQG PRUDO VXSSRUW GXULQJ P\ JUDGXDWH VWXGLHV DQG KLV WKRURXJK JXLGDQFH RI WKLV VWXG\ WRZDUG LWV FRPSOHWLRQ ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN 0DULOLQ KLV ZLIH ZKR RQ VHYHUDO RFFDVLRQV DFWHG DV FRXULHU LQ GHOLYHULQJ FRUn UHVSRQGHQFH EHWZHHQ *DLQHVYLOOH DQG 1RUWK &DUROLQDf ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH WLPH DQG HIIRUW KH VR ZLOOLQJO\ JDYH WR WKLV SURMHFW ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN P\ FRFKDLUPDQ 'U 5REHUW 6FKROHV IRU KHOSLQJ WR LQVWLOO LQ PH DQ HQWKXVLDVP IRU UHVHDUFK $SSUHFLDWLRQ LV DOVR H[WHQGHG WRZDUG 'U 6FKROHV IRU KHOSLQJ PH PDLQWDLQ WKH QHFHVVDU\ PRPHQWXP WR FRPSOHWH WKLV VWXG\ ZLWK FRPPHQWV VXFK DV SODQ WR UHWLUH ZKHQ \RX ILQLVK0 ZLVK WR WKDQN 'U ,UD 6 )LVFKOHU IRU KLV FRQWULEXWLRQV DQG FULWLTXH Y RQ WHVW GHVLJQ H[SHULPHQWDO SURFHGXUH DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV +LV HQn WKXVLDVWLF JXLGDQFH RQ SV\FKRORJLFDO DSSURDFKHV WR PHPRU\ ZDV LQYDOXDEOH 6SHFLDO WKDQNV DUH H[WHQGHG WR WKH IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII RI WKH )ORULGD 6FKRRO IRU WKH 'HDI DQG %OLQG HVSHFLDOO\ WR 0U -RVHSK 3 )LQQHJDQ 0U -HUU\ 3URNHV 0V 3DW :HVWPRUHODQG 0U -RKQ 7 7LIIDQ\ 0U %RE *UDKDP DQG WKH HQWLUH -DFNLH -RKQVRQ IDPLO\ DOVR ZLVK WR WKDQN P\ SDQHO RI UDWHUV 0V 5RVH *UHHQPXQ 0U (GZDUG *UREEOH 0V 0XULHO 0DOOR\ 0U .HQQHWK 5DQGDOO DQG 0U 5REHUW 7KRPVRQ ,9

PAGE 5

)RU WKHLU HQWKXVLDVP DQG FRRSHUDWLRQ WKDQN WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR SDUWLFLn SDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG OLNH WR H[WHQG P\ VLQFHUH WKDQNV WR 0U 0DUVKDOO &RKHQ IRU KLV KHOS ZLWK WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN 0U -DPHV : )ODYLQ 2IILFH RI ,QVWUXFn WLRQDO 5HVRXUFHV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD IRU KLV SURGXFWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ ILOP DQG KLV LQVWUXFWLRQV RQ WKH XVDJH RI WKH YLGHR HTXLSn PHQW DQG FDPHUDV 1RWKLQJ FDQ H[SUHVV KRZ PXFK RZH P\ IDPLO\ IULHQGV DQG 0LWVRXNL IRU WKHLU VXSSRUW WRZDUG WKH VXFFHVVIXO FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKLV YHQWXUH Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

3DJH %77 *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO )& 7DVN 6FRULQJ &ULWHULRQ %77 *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO )& 5DWLQJ $QDO\VLV &+$37(5 9 5(68/76 ,QWURGXFWLRQ /LQJXLVWLF 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 &RUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG WKH -XGJHG /HYHO RI )& 3URILFLHQF\ 'HPRJUDSKLF 'DWD (WLRORJ\ G% /RVV 5HDGLQJ /HYHO $JH :KHQ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ )LUVW $FTXLUHG $JH )LUVW /DQJXDJH LQ WKH +RPH 2WKHU +HDULQJ ,PSDLUHG )DPLO\ 0HPEHUV 3HUVRQV DW +RPH :KR &DQ )LQJHU 6SHOO DQGRU 6LJQ 1XPEHU RI
PAGE 8

3DJH $JH RI /HDUQLQJ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ G% /RVV $JH RI 6XEMHFWV )LUVW /DQJXDJH LQ WKH +RPH 3HUVRQV DW +RPH :KR &DQ )LQJHU 6SHOO DQGRU 6LJQ 2WKHU +HDULQJ ,PSDLUHG )DPLO\ 0HPEHUV 1XPEHU RI
PAGE 9

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f 3UHYLRXV OLQJXLVWLF H[SHULPHQWV FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH RUDO RU JUDSKLF PHGLXPV KDG UDLVHG D TXHVWLRQ DV WR ZKHWKHU ORZ OLQJXLVWLF VFRUHV ZHUH WKH UHVXOW RI WUXH LJQRUDQFH IRU D WDVN RU GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH WHVWLQJ PHGLXP LWVHOI 7KH IXQFWLRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV )&f RI WKH GHDI IRU FRQYH\LQJ VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKHQ DOORZHG WR XWLOL]H WKH SUHIHUUHG YLVXDOJHVWXUDO $PHULFDQ 6LJQ /DQJXDJH $0(6/$1f FRPPXQLFDWLRQ PHWKRG ZDV DOVR LQYHVWLJDWHG 7KH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OLQJXLVWLF VFRUHV DQG MXGJHG OHYHO RI )& SURILFLHQF\ )LQDOO\ D GHPRJUDSKLF VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI OLQn JXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RU )& UDWLQJV ZHUH UHODWHG WR WKH YDULDEOHV RI L[

PAGE 10

HWLRORJ\ G% ORVV LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH RWKHU KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV SHUVRQV DW KRPH ZKR FDQ ILQJHU VSHOO DQGRU VLJQ DJH ZKHQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ ZDV ILUVW DFTXLUHG QXPEHU RI \HDUV DW )ORULGD 6FKRRO IRU WKH 'HDI DQG %OLQG )6'%f UHDGLQJ OHYHO ,4 DJH UDFH DQG VH[ 7KH %HUU\7DOERWW /DQJXDJH 7HVWV &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI *UDPPDU %77f D WHVW RI PRUSKRORJ\ ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG LQ WZR GLVWLQFW WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQV 2QH SUHVHUYHG WKH WUDGLWLRQDO WHVWLQJ IRUPDW RI JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH 7KH RWKHU SUHVHQWHG WKH VDPH WHVW VWLPXOL LQ D YLGHR WDSHG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZKHUH WKH VXEMHFW ILQJHU VSHOOHG WKH UHVSRQVH $ SDLUHG GLIIHUHQFH WVWDWLVWLF UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILn FDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ FRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV LQ IDYRU RI WKH JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ )RU WKH )& UDWLQJ WKH VXEMHFW UHDG D VLPSOH SDUDJUDSK ZKLFK KH UHn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n WLRQV UHDGLQJ OHYHO ZDV WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH IRU DOO WKUHH RGHOV [

PAGE 11

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 7KH SURFHVV RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ LV GHSHQGHQW XSRQ PDQ\ ELRORJLn FDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO IDFWRUV $PRQJ WKH VHQVRU\ PRGDOLWLHV WKH DXGLWRU\ IRUP LV RI SULPH LPSRUWDQFH IRU QRUPDO DFTXLVLWLRQ WR RFFXU 'HSULYDWLRQ RI WKLV PRGDOLW\ XVXDOO\ KDV D GLVDVWURXV HIIHFW RQ ODQJXDJH (YHQ D FXUVRU\ FRPSDULVRQ RI KHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ UHYHDOV WKH H[WUHPHO\ OLPLWHG YHUEDO H[SUHVVLRQ RI WKH FKLOGUHQ GHSULYHG RI DXGLWRU\ VWLPXODn WLRQ ,Q D UHSRUW WR WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ WKH (GXFDWLRQ RI WKH 'HDI 0RUWRQ LQ VWDWHG LQ DGGLWLRQ WR RWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW 7KH DYHUDJH JUDGXDWH RI D SXEOLF UHVLGHQWLDO VFKRRO IRU WKH GHDI WKH FORVHVW ZH KDYH WR JHQHUDOO\ DYDLODEOH KLJK VFKRROV IRU WKH GHDI KDV LQ HIn IHFW DQ HLJKWK JUDGH HGXFDWLRQ 6HQLRUV DW *DOODXGHW &ROOHJH WKH QDWLRQnV RQO\ FROOHJH IRU WKH GHDI UDQN FORVH WR WKH ERWWRP LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH *UDGXDWH 5HFRUG ([DP} S f 7KLV VLWXDWLRQ KDV UHPDLQHG UHODWLYHO\ XQFKDQJHG \HDUV ODWHU $QNHQ DQG +ROPHV UHSRUWHG LQ WKDW HYHQ DIWHU \HDUV RI H[WHQVLYH HGXFDWLRQ ZLWK DQ RYHUZKHOPLQJ HPSKDVLV RQ ODQJXDJH WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUn IRUPDQFH RI WKH DYHUDJH SUHOLQJXDOO\ GHDI DGROHVFHQW KDV UHPDLQHG H[n WUHPHO\ SRRU LQ WKH DUHDV RI UHDGLQJ DQG ZULWWHQ FRPSRVLWLRQ 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ PDQ\ K\SRWKHVHV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH SRRU OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI 1XPHURXV LQYHVWLJDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR VXSSRUW WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV DQG KDYH SURYLGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW IDFWRUV

PAGE 12

VXFK DV HWLRORJ\ HDUO\ ODQJXDJH VWLPXODWLRQ DQG PHWKRG RI FODVVURRP LQVWUXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK KDV DOVR EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR REWDLQ LQn IRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ FRJQLWLYH WDVNV VSHFLILF OLQJXLVWLF WDVNV SHUWLQHQW TXDOLWLHV RI $PHULFDQ 6LJQ /DQJXDJH $0(6/$1f DV ZHOO DV WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI WR SUHFLVHO\ FRPPXQLFDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ XWLOL]LQJ WKHLU RZQ YLVXDOJHVWXUDO VLJQ ODQJXDJHf V\VWHP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH SUHVHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR REWDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WZR GLVWLQFW DVSHFWV RI WKH FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ RI GHDI DGROHVFHQWV 7KH %HUU\7DOERWW 7HVW RI 0RUSKRORJLFDO DQG 'HULYDWLRQDO 5XOHV %77f %HUU\ f ZDV XVHG WR FRPSDUH OLQJXLVWLF VNLOOV IRU VSHFLILF PRUn SKRORJLFDO LWHPV ZKLFK ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WZR VHSDUDWH FRQGLWLRQVf§JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ 7KH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO %77 VFRUHV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG $ PHDVXUH ZDV REWDLQHG RI WKH VXEMHFWIV FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHn QHVV )XQFWLRQDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ )&f IRU FRQYH\LQJ VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKHQ DOORZHG WR XWLOL]H KLV SUHIHUUHG YLVXDOJHVWXUDO $0(6/$1f FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ PHWKRG 7KLV )& VFRUH ZDV FRPSDUHG ZLWK ERWK %77 VFRUHV )LQDOO\ WKH WZR %77 VFRUHV DQG WKH )& VFRUHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR WKH VXEMHFWV HQn YLURQPHQWDO HGXFDWLRQDO DQG PHGLFDO GDWD

PAGE 13

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( ,QWURGXFWLRQ %HFDXVH VRPH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH GHDI DQG WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG SHUWLQHQW VWXGLHV ZLWK WKH ODWWHU JURXS DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ $ UHYLHZ RI WKHRULHV LQ GHDI HGXFDWLRQ LV ORFDWHG LQ WKH ILUVW VHFWLRQ 7KH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ FRQWDLQV WKHRULHV RQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI $0(6/$1 DV DQ HIIHFWLYH FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ V\VWHP $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI RQ ODQJXDJH DVVHVVPHQW WDVNV LV WKH PDLQ WRSLF IRU WKH WKLUG VHFWLRQ %RWK FRJQLn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n FDWHV RI VRPH VRUW RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP ZKLFK SUHVHUYHV WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK DQG V\QWD[ $PRQJ WKLV JURXS ZRXOG EH IRXQG GHIHQGHUV RI WKH

PAGE 14

SXUHO\ RUDO VFKRRO ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQGRU VLJQHG (QJOLVK DSSURDFKHV 7KH ODWWHU WZR PHWKRGRORJLHV DUH GLUHFW PDSSLQJV RI YLVXDO FOXHV XSRQ VSRNHQ (QJOLVKf $QG DPRQJ WKHVH JURXSV WKHPVHOYHV WKHUH DUH GLVDJUHHn PHQWV DV WR WKH EHVW PHWKRGRORJ\ IRU LPSOHPHQWLQJ ODQJXDJH ,Q FRQWUDVW VRPH HGXFDWRUV IHHO WKDW LW LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH GHDI WR ILUVW DFTXLUH DQ\ IRUP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP 7KLV ZRXOG QRW QHFHVVDULO\ SUHFOXGH OHDUQLQJ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK DW VRPH ODWHU DJHf 7KH JURXS WKDW FRQVLGHUV $0(6/$1 WR EH WKH SULPDU\ ODQJXDJH RI WKH GHDI DGYRn FDWHV WKLV V\VWHP RI GHDI HGXFDWLRQ 7KH REYLRXV H[DPSOH IRU WKHLU UDn WLRQDOH LV WKH PDUNHGO\ VXSHULRU FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV ZKR DUH H[SRVHG WR DQ HDUO\ IRUP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DV RSSRVHG WR WKH JHQHUDOO\ LQIHULRU FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLWLHV RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI KHDUn LQJ SDUHQWV ZKR DUH XVXDOO\ GHSULYHG RI VXFK D V\VWHP +RZHYHU WKLV YLVXDOJHVWXUDO V\VWHP KDV EHHQ WUDGLWLRQDOO\ DQG LQ PDQ\ FDVHV VWLOO LV YLHZHG DV DQ LQIHULRU FRPPXQLFDWLYH V\VWHP LQFDSDEOH RI H[SUHVVLQJ DQ\n WKLQJ EXW YHU\ VLPSOH FRQFUHWH QHHGV )RU WKLV UHDVRQ LW KDV EHHQ RQO\ UHn FHQWO\ WKDW UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH HYHQ FRQVLGHUHG VWXG\LQJ WKH EDVLF SURSHUWLHV DQG FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI $0(6/$1 DV D ODQJXDJH V\VWHP 6RPH LQLn WLDO H[SHULPHQWV VXSSRUW WKH WUDGLWLRQDO YLHZ 6FKOHVLQJHU f ZKHUHDV RWKHU LQYHVWLJDWRUV KDYH IRXQG WKLV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG WKDQ SUHYLRXVO\ WKRXJKW %HOOXJL t )LVFKHU %RGH f $Q RYHUYLHZ RI WUDGLWLRQDO DQG FRQWHPSRUDU\ SKLORVRSKLHV DQG WKH HQn VXLQJ FRQWURYHUVLHV LQ GHDI HGXFDWLRQ LV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ 2UDO YV 0DQXDO &RQWURYHUV\ 7KHUH LV SUDFWLFDOO\ WRWDO DJUHHPHQW WKDW WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI WKH GHDI KDV EHHQ ODFNLQJ DQG WKDW SODQV VKRXOG EH PDGH WR DXJPHQW LW ,W ZRXOG

PAGE 15

EH UDUH WR ILQG VRPHRQH ZKR RSSRVHG HDUOLHU GLDJQRVLV RI WKH SUREOHP DQG LPPHGLDWH DPSOLILFDWLRQ DQG H[WHQVLYH ODQJXDJH LQWHUYHQWLRQ 7KHUH LV KRZHYHU VRPH FRQWURYHUV\ DV WR WKH H[DFW PDQQHU IRU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKLV WUDLQLQJ 7KH GHEDWH RI 2UDOLVP YV 0DQXDOLVP LV SUDFWLFDOO\ DV ROG DV GHDI HGXFDWLRQ LWVHOI 9HU\ JHQHUDOO\ WKH RUDO JURXS EHOLHYHV WKDW LQVWUXFn WLRQ VKRXOG EH SXUHO\ RUDO DQG HPSKDVL]HV DPSOLILFDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ RI UHVLGXDO KHDULQJ DQG VSHHFK UHDGLQJ 7KH PDQXDO JURXS IRU WKH PRVW SDUW DOVR EHOLHYHV WKDW HYHU\WKLQJ SUHYLRXVO\ FLWHG LV LPSRUWDQW KRZn HYHU WKH\ DOVR HPSKDVL]H WKH DGGLWLRQ RI YLVXDO FOXHV WR WKH VSHHFK FRGH HLWKHU E\ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ VLJQLQJ RU ERWK $UJXPHQWV IRU 2UDOLVP DUH VWURQJ DQG LPSUHVVLYH 0RVW RI WKH ZRUOGrV SRSXODWLRQ GR KHDU VR LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH GHDI FKLOG EH LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKLV VRFLHW\ 6LJQLQJ RI DQ\ VRUW LV HPSKDWLFDOO\ GLVFRXUDJHG VLQFH LW LV EHOLHYHG WKDW LW ZLOO FRQWDPLQDWH DQG HYHQ SUHn YHQW VSHHFK GHYHORSPHQW :LWKRXW VLJQV WKH GHDI FKLOG LV IUHH WR GHYHORS LQ DQ XQKLQGHUHG PDQQHU WKH PRUH QDWXUDO PRGH RI VSHHFK 6LJQLQJ LV DOVR GLVFRXUDJHG IRU WKH DGGLWLRQDO UHDVRQ WKDW LW LV EHOLHYHG WR EH DQ LQIHULRU ODQJXDJH WKDW ZLOO RQO\ FRQIXVH DQG FRQILQH WKH QDWXUDO ODQn JXDJH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH FKLOG EHFDXVH VLJQV DUH YLHZHG DV WRR LQHIILFLHQW D PHWKRG WR DOORZ IRU WKH VXEWOHWLHV RI QRUPDO ODQJXDJH 7KHVH DUJXPHQWV DUH YHU\ DWWUDFWLYH WR WKH KHDULQJ SDUHQWV RI GHDI LQIDQWV 7KH\ RIIHU JORZLQJ KRSH WKDW WKURXJK FRQVWDQW ODQJXDJH VWLPXODn WLRQ VRPHGD\ WKHLU FKLOG ZLOO RYHUFRPH KLV KDQGLFDS DQG XWLOL]H VSHHFK DQG ODQJXDJH OLNH WKH KHDULQJ SRSXODWLRQ )RU D YHU\ IHZ FKLOGUHQ WKLV LV WUXH

PAGE 16

0DQXDOLVP KDV DQ HDUO\ KLVWRU\ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 7KH )UHQFK 0HWKRG VLJQVf ZDV EURXJKW WR WKLV FRXQWU\ E\ (GZDUG *DOODXGHW DQG *DOODXGHW &ROOHJH WRGD\ FRQGXFWV LQVWUXFWLRQ XVLQJ VLJQV :KLOH WKH 0DQXDOLVWV ZRXOG QRW GHQ\ WKH FKLOGfV QHHG WR VSHDN DQG OHDUQ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK WKH\ EHOLHYH WKDW VRPH VRUW RI YLVXDO FOXH ZLOO HQKDQFH WKLV SURFHVV 7KH\ FRQWHQG WKDW WKH 2UDOLVWfV HPSKDVLV RQ VSHHFK UHDGLQJ GRHV QRW JLYH DGHTXDWH YLVXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH ODQJXDJH FRQWHQW ,W KDV EHHQ VKRZQ E\ $OWHUPDQ f WKDW RQO\ bb RI (QJOLVK SKRQHPHV DUH YLVLEOH RQ WKH OLSV /LS PRYHPHQWV DUH WUDQVLHQW DQG TXLWH ILQH 7KH\ WKHUHIRUH SODFH D JUHDW VWUDLQ RQ YLVXDO SURILFLHQF\ DQG PHPRU\ 3HOVRQ DQG 3UDWKHU f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f EHOLHYHG WKHQ LQ WKH DEVHQFH RU GHILFLW RI WKLV DXGLWRU\ IHHGEDFN VSHHFK PD\ QRW EH WKH LGHDO PHGLXP IRU FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ E\ WKH GHDI 7KH 0DQXDOLVWV DUH TXLFN WR HOXFLGDWH WKDW WRGD\ WKH GHDI SRSXODn WLRQ GLIIHUV IURP WKH RQH RI \HDUV DJR 1RZ DOPRVW DOO RI WKH FKLOn GUHQ DUH FRQJHQLWDOO\ RU SUHOLQJXDOO\ GHDI ZKHUHDV LQ WKH IV D OLWWOH RYHU RQHWKLUG RI WKH GHDI FKLOGUHQ EHFDPH VR DIWHU WKH DFTXLVLn WLRQ RI DW OHDVW VRPH VSHHFK DQG ODQJXDJH (YHQ D OLWWOH H[SRVXUH WR ODQJXDJH EHIRUH WKH RQVODXJKW RI GHDIQHVV LV RI WUHPHQGRXV KHOS LQ IXWXUH ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJ

PAGE 17

0XFK RI WKLV GHEDWH FDQ EH UHODWHG WR WKH KHWHURJHQHLW\ RI WKH GHDI SRSXODWLRQ LWVHOI 7KH HWLRORJ\ RI GHDIQHVV LV H[WUHPHO\ YDULHG 7KHUHIRUH LW ZRXOG QRW EH VXUSULVLQJ WR GLVFRYHU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ODQJXDJH DELOLWLHV ZLWK YDULDWLRQV LQ RWKHU YDULDEOHV VXFK DV ,4 G% ORVV HGXFDn WLRQDO H[SHULHQFH RU DQ\WKLQJ HOVH 1RZ RQO\ DERXW b RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ EHFRPH GHDI SRVWOLQJXDOO\ DV RSSRVHG WR DURXQG b LQ 9HUQRQ f 7RGD\ UXEHOOD ZKHQ FRQWUDFWHG E\ WKH PRWKHU GXULQJ DQ\ VWDWH RI SUHJQDQF\ LV RQH RI WKH PRVW IUHTXHQW FDXVHV RI GHDIQHVV 7KH HIIHFW RI WKLV GLVHDVH LV VR LQn VLGLRXV WKDW HYHQ LI WKH PRWKHU VKRXOG FRQWDFW VXFK D PLOG FDVH WKDW VKH LV XQDZDUH RI DQ\ SDWKRORJ\ LW LV QRW XQOLNHO\ WKDW WKH EDE\ ZLOO KDYH D FRQJHQLWDO KHDULQJ GHIHFW ,Q D OLWWOH OHVV WKDQ RQHKDOI RI WKH FDVHV WKH HWLRORJ\ RI GHDIn QHVV LV XQNQRZQ ,W PD\ H[LVW LQ LVRODWLRQ EXW LV IUHTXHQWO\ DFFRPSDQLHG E\ RWKHU GLVDELOLWLHV ZKLFK PD\ EH FRQJHQLWDO RU DFTXLUHG 7KHUH LV OHVV SRVVLELOLW\ IRU DFFRPSDQ\LQJ DQRPDOLHV IRU GHDI FKLOGUHQ ZLWK GHDI SDUHQWV VLQFH LQ WKHVH FDVHV WKH GLVDELOLW\ LV DWWULEXWHG ODUJHO\ WR KHUHGLWDU\ IDFWRUV ,Q D ODUJH VXUYH\ 6FKHLQ f GLVFRYHUHG WKDW b RU PRUH GHDI VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ KDG DGGLWLRQDO GLVDELOLWLHV ,W KDV EHHQ QRWHG WKDW IRXU RI WKH ILYH RWKHU HWLRORJLHV FRPPRQO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHDIQHVV DUH DOVR DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FRQJHQLWDO EUDLQ GDPDJH 7KH GDPDJH LQ WKHVH FDVHV PD\ EH YHU\ VXEWOH DQG PDVNHG E\ WKH RYHUZKHOPLQJ YDULDEOH RI GHDIQHVV &RQn VHTXHQWO\ ZLWK FXUUHQW PHWKRGV LW LV YHU\ GLIILFXOW WR GHWHFW DQG GHn OLQHDWH EUDLQ GDPDJH 9HUQRQ f :LWK VXFK D KHWHURJHQRXV SRSXODWLRQ DV WKH GHDI LW FRXOG EH LQn IHUUHG WKDW D PHWKRGRORJ\ ZKLFK VXFFHHGV ZLWK RQH FKLOG PD\ QRW QHFHVn VDULO\ EH WKH PRVW DGYDQWDJHRXV IRU DQRWKHU FKLOG

PAGE 18

&XUUHQW 7KHRULHV $W RQH WLPH WKH 0DQXDOLVWV GLG QRW KDYH DQ DGHTXDWH UHSO\ IRU WKH FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW $0(6/$1 ZDV D SRRU DQG LQIHULRU ODQJXDJH $W EHVW DOO WKDW FRXOG EH VDLG ZDV WKDW $0(6/$1 GLG DIIRUG WKH GHDI VRPH PHGLXP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 5HFHQW SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVHDUFK KDV UHYHDOHG WKDW $0(6/$1 LV UHDOO\ PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG WKDQ SUHYLRXVO\ EHOLHYHG %HOOXJL t )LVFKHU &XWWLQJ t .DYDQDJK f ,W KDV DOVR EHHQ QRWHG WKDW MXVW DV VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH KDV FHUWDLQ SKRQHPHV ZLWK VSHFLILF ERXQGDULHV VLJQV DOVR SRVVHVV HTXLYDOHQW UHVWULFn WLRQV 6LJQV DUH D XQLTXH FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKUHH SDUDPHWHUV Df SODFH LQ UHODWLRQ WR ERG\ SDUWV ZKHUH WKH VLJQ EHJLQV DQG HQGV Ef DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH KDQG WKDW IRUPV WKH VLJQ LWVHOI DQG Ff DFWLRQ RI WKH VLJQ .DQ QDSHOO f ,I DQ\ RI WKHVH SDUDPHWHUV DUH YLRODWHG WKHQ QDWLYH VLJQHUV UHSRUW VHHLQJ WKH VLJQ DV HLWKHU LQFRUUHFW GLDOHFWLFDO RU WKH HTXLYDOHQW WR VOLSV RI WKH WRQJXH &XWWLQJ t .DYDQDJK f ,QGHHG LW KDV EHHQ REVHUYHG WKDW WKH GHDI GR KDYH WKHLU RZQ KXPRU DQG SXQV 7KHUH KDV EHHQ PXFK GLVDJUHHPHQW DPRQJ WKH 0DQXDOLVWV WKHPVHOYHV DV WR WKH EHVW PHWKRG IRU LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH YLVXDO FOXHV +ROOLV DQG &DUULHU f FLWHG WKH ZRUN RI 3UHPDFN WR VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW XVLQJ D QRQVSHHFK PRGH WR LPSOHPHQW D VHW RI FRPSUHKHQVLYH FRQFHSWV ZRXOG PDNH LW HDVLHU WR OHDUQ WKH PRUH IXQFWLRQDO PRGH RI VSHHFK .DQQDSHOO f WKRXJKW RI $0(6/$1 DV WKH PRWKHU WRQJXH DQG VXJn JHVWHG WKDW FXUUHQW WUHQGV LQ ELOLQJXDO HGXFDWLRQ EH IROORZHG LQ UHIHUn HQFH WR WKH GHDI *DOODXGHW KDV EHJXQ D UHPHGLDO (QJOLVK SURJUDP EDVHG RQ IRUHLJQ ODQJXDJH WHDFKLQJ SULQFLSOHV *ROGEHUJ t %RUGPDQ f &RQYHUVHO\ 6WRNRH f SUHVHQWHG VRPH GLIILFXOWLHV RI LQFRUn SRUDWLQJ 0(6/$1 ZLWK (QJOLVK LQIOHFWLRQV DV IROORZV

PAGE 19

$ VLJQ PD\ KDYH RQO\ PHDQLQJ LQ $0(6($1 DQG VHYHUDO LQ VLJQHG (QJOLVK ,QIOHFWLRQV DIIL[HG WR D VLJQ GR QRW DOORZ IRU WKH LUUHJXODU (QJOLVK IRUPDWLRQV IRU FHUWDLQ ZRUGV 6WUHVV LV HTXDO DQG LV WDXJKW PDLQO\ IRU DGYHUEV WKHUHIRUH WKH GHDI PD\ KDYH QR LGHD WKDW RWKHU GHULYDWLRQV FDQ RFFXU DV LQ DGMHFWLYHVS f 2WKHUV YLHZ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DV WKH LGHDO YLVXDO FOXH IRU WKH GHDI FKLOG ,WV SURSRQHQWV DUJXH WKDW VLQFH LW LV DQ H[DFW OHWWHU IRU OHWWHU GXSOLFDWLRQ RI VSRNHQ (QJOLVK LW ZLOO JLYH WKH FKLOG DQ H[DFW NQRZOHGJH RI KLV ODQJXDJH DQG SUHVHUYH WUDGLWLRQDO JUDPPDU 8VXDOO\ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ LV XVHG IRU HYHU\ ZRUG WKDW LV VSRNHQ +RZHYHU LW PD\ EH XVHG DV LQ WKH 6RYLHW 8QLRQ IRU LVRODWHG ZRUGV WR KHOS LQ FODULILFDWLRQ 0RUNRYLQ f +RHPDQQ @fIRXQG WKDW WKH XVH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ GLG IDYRUDEO\ LQIOXHQFH WKH GHDIn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t ,OXVD f 7KH 2UDOLVWVn REMHFWLRQ WKDW ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ KLQGHUV WKH GHYHORSn PHQW RI WUDGLWLRQDO VSHHFK KDV QRW EHHQ SURYHQ 0RVW FRPSDULVRQV RI RUDOO\ DQG PDQXDOO\ HGXFDWHG GHDI FKLOGUHQ UHYHDOHG QR GLIIHUHQFHV EHn WZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV RQ VSHHFK /LS UHDGLQJ VNLOOV ZHUH IRXQG WR FRUn UHODWH PRUH KLJKO\ ZLWK WKH DPRXQW RI UHVLGXDO KHDULQJ

PAGE 20

6XPPDU\ RI 3KLORVRSKLHV LQ 'HDI (GXFDWLRQ $ UHYLHZ RI SKLORVRSKLHV LQ GHDI HGXFDWLRQ KDV LQGLFDWHG WKH IROn ORZLQJ $GYRFDWHV RI 2UDO DQG 0DQXDO HGXFDWLRQ DJUHH RQ VXFK LVVXHV DV HDUO\ GLDJQRVLV LPPHGLDWH DPSOLILFDWLRQ DQG H[WHQVLYH ODQJXDJH LQWHUn YHQWLRQ 7KH 2UDOLVWV HPSKDVL]H RUDO LQVWUXFWLRQ DXGLWRU\ WUDLQLQJ DQG OLS UHDGLQJ 7KH 0DQXDOLVWV DJUHH WKDW DOO DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH DERYH LWHP DUH LPSRUWDQW KRZHYHU WKH\ DOVR EHOLHYH WKDW DGGLWLRQDO YLVXDO FOXHV DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR DLG WKH GHDInV DFTXLVLWLRQ RI ODQJXDJH 7KHUH KDV EHHQ QR HYLGHQFH WKDW VLJQLQJ RU ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ KLQGHUV WKH VSHHFK RI WKH GHDI 7KHUH DUH GLVDJUHHPHQWV DPRQJ WKH 0DQXDOLVWV WKHPVHOYHV DV WR WKH EHVW PHWKRG IRU ODQJXDJH LQWHUYHQWLRQ Df ILQJHU VSHOOLQJf§ZKLFK VSHOOV HDFK ZRUG DV LW LV VLPXOn WDQHRXVO\ VSRNHQ Ef VLJQHG (QJOLVKf§ZKLFK LV DOVR D GLUHFW PDSSLQJ WR WKH VSRNHQ (QJOLVK H[FHSW WKDW VLJQV DV ZHOO DV ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DUH XWLOL]HG Ff $0(6/$1f§ZKLFK LV WKH XQLTXH ODQJXDJH RI WKH GHDI DQG GRHV QRW KDYH WKH VDPH SURSHUWLHV RU V\QWD[ RI VSRNHQ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK Gf (QJOLVK DV D VHFRQG ODQJXDJHf§ZKLFK DV DQ LQVWUXFWLRQDO SKLORVRSK\ ZRXOG ERUURZ IURP FXUUHQW ELOLQJXDO SURJUDPV

PAGE 21

$ QRQVHQVH WHVW RI PRUSKRORJ\ XWLOL]LQJ D PDQXDO VLJQHG (QJOLVKf DV ZHOO DV WKH PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO JUDSKLF PHGLXPV IRU LWHP SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH ZRXOG Df SUHFLVHO\ GHILQH SRLQWV RI GHYLDQF\ Ef JLYH HGXFDWRUV RI WKH GHDI LQVLJKW LQWR WKHLU SUHVHQW DQG IXWXUH LQVWUXFWLRQDO IRUPDW E\ SURYLGLQJ HYLGHQFH IRU SRVVLEOH PRGLn ILFDWLRQ $ FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV UDWLQJ )&f EDVHG RQ WKH VXEMHFWV DELOLW\ WR FRQYH\ VRPH VWDQGDUG SURVH LQ KLV SUHIHUUHG YLVXDOJHVWXUDO $0(6/$1f PHGLXP ZRXOG Df JLYH LQVLJKW DV WR WKH FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ OHYHO RI WKH GHDI DV ZHOO DV WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI $0(6/$1 LWVHOI WR FRQYH\ WKRXJKWV DQG LGHDV Ef FRQWULEXWH PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH VWLOO UHODWLYHO\ XQn NQRZQ DUHD RI $0(6/$1 Ff GLVFHUQ LI DQ\ FRUUHODWLRQ RQ VSHFLILF OLQJXLVWLF WDVNV LV UHODWHG WR JHQHUDO FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV ZKHQ XWLOL]LQJ $0(6/$1 $PHULFDQ 6LJQ /DQJXDJH DV DQ (IIHFWLYH &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6\VWHP ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q WKLV FRPPXQLFDWLYH DSSURDFK ZLWK WKH GHDI WKH FRQFHUQ LV QRW VR PXFK ZLWK WKH SDUWLFXODU PRUSKHPHV RU V\QWD[ RI WUDGLWLRQDO ODQJXDJHV LH (QJOLVK )UHQFK $]WHF -DSDQHVH HWFf EXW UDWKHU ZLWK WKH FRPn PXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI ZKDWHYHU VLJQDOOLQJ V\VWHP LV EHLQJ HPSOR\HG 7KH VLJQDOOLQJ V\VWHPV XQGHU VFUXWLQ\ LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH WKRVH WUDGLWLRQn DOO\ XWLOL]HG E\ WKH GHDI VXFK DV ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ $0(6/$1 OLS UHDGLQJ

PAGE 22

JHVWXULQJ DQG VLJQLQJ ,W LV NQRZQ WKDW LQ QDWXUDO ODQJXDJHV VXFK DV (QJOLVK D SOHWKRUD RI LGHDVf§LGHDV VXFK DV FDXVDOLW\ *HWWLQJ KLW E\ WKH EDW PDGH -RKQ FU\ff§DQG DEVWUDFW FRQFHSWV FDQ EH DGHTXDWHO\ FRPn PXQLFDWHG 2QH RI WKH TXHVWLRQV PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ DVNHG DERXW $0(6/$1 LV WKDW RI LWV FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH HIILFLHQF\ RI QDWXUDO WUDGLWLRQDOf ODQJXDJHV ,V WKHUH D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ GHILFLHQF\ LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU VLJQLQJ V\VWHP HYHQ ZKHQ HPSOR\HG E\ FRPSHWHQW VLJQHUV" $QRWKHU TXHVWLRQ XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LV ZKHWKHU SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WUDGLWLRQDO OLQJXLVWLF WDVNV PD\ JLYH VRPH LQGLFDWLRQ DV WR WKH JHQHUDO FRPPXQLFDn WLYH OHYHO RI D GHDI VXEMHFW ZKHQ KH LV DOORZHG IUHH XVDJH RI KLV RZQ YLVXDOJHVWXUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP WR FRQYH\ QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ $FTXLVLWLRQ RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6\VWHPV E\ 1RUPDO DQG 'HDI &KLOGUHQ $URXQG WKH EDEEOLQJ VWDJH RI RU PRQWKV WKH GHDI FKLOGfV SURn GXFWLRQ EHJLQV WR GLIIHU IURP WKH QRUPDO 0HQ\XN f 7KH KHDULQJ FKLOG UHLQIRUFHG E\ KHDULQJ KLV XWWHUDQFHV PD\ DPXVH KLPVHOI E\ FRQn VWDQWO\ UHSHDWLQJ QRQVHQVH V\OODEOHV 1DWXUDOO\ WKH GHDI FKLOG ODFNV WKLV UHLQIRUFHPHQW (YHQ EHIRUH WKLV GLIIHUHQFH LQ SURGXFWLRQ LV QRn WLFHG WKHUH H[LVWHG DQ DXGLWRU\ SHUFHSWXDO GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKDW WKH KHDUn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

PAGE 23

WLPH WKHQ WKH FKLOG PD\ QHYHU DFKLHYH DGXOW FRPSHWHQFH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH /HQQHQEHUJ f 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ LW LV QRW XQXVXDO IRU ODQJXDJH VWLPXn ODWLRQ IRU GHDI FKLOGUHQ WR EHJLQ DW WKH WLPH RI IRUPDO HGXFDWLRQ ZKLFK LV XVXDOO\ DURXQG WKH DJH RI RU +RHPDQQ f QRWHG WKDW WKH VFKRn ODVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKRVH KLJK VFKRRO GHDI VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG D SUHVFKRRO ODQJXDJH SURJUDP ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ EHWWHU WKDQ WKHLU SHHUV ZKR ZHUH GHn SULYHG RI WKLV H[SHULHQFH %HFDXVH WKH GHDI SRSXODWLRQ XVHV JHVWXUHV LQVWHDG RI VSHHFK LW ZDV RQFH WKRXJKW DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV VWLOO EHOLHYHG WR EH D SULPLWLYH V\VWHP ZKLFK FRXOG RQO\ EH XVHG IRU H[SUHVVLQJ EDVLF QHHGV 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ D YHU\ SULPLWLYH JHVWXUH V\VWHP LV WKH RQO\ PHDQV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ IRU VRPH RI WKH GHDIn 7KHVH SHRSOH DUH RIWHQ GHDI FKLOn GUHQ RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV DQG KDYH QRW EHHQ H[SRVHG WR RWKHU GHDI SHRSOH (YHQ WKRXJK VRPH VLJQV VHHP WR EH XQLYHUVDOf§DV LQ SRLQWLQJ WR WKH PRXWK IRU KXQJU\ RU IRRGf§WKLV GHDI SHUVRQ IRU ODFN RI RWKHU VWLPXOL GHYHORSV KLV RZQ LGLRV\QFUDWLF JHVWXUH V\VWHP 6RPH GHDI LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ GHYHORS D PRUH UHJXODWHG V\VWHPf§GXH LQ SDUW WR WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW ,Q VFKRROV IRU WKH GHDI LW LV ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW WKH FKLOGUHQ GR LQ IDFW VLJQ ZKHQ WKH IDFXOW\ DUH QRW ZDWFKLQJ /DWHU LI WKH\ EHFRPH DIILOLDWHG ZLWK RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH GHDI FRPPXQLW\ WKHLU VLJQLQJ EHFRPHV PRUH UHJXODWHG LQ WKDW FHUWDLQ VLJQV DUH DFFHSWHG DQG XVHG E\ HYHU\RQH IRU D SDUWLFXODU ZRUG RU FRQFHSW 7KHVH SHRSOH HVWDEOLVK D IDLUO\ FRQVLVWHQW PHDQV RI JHVWXUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ $V %HOOXJL DQG )LVFKHU f KDYH QRWHG WKHUH DUH VHYHUDO IHDWXUHV DOO VLJQ ODQJXDJHV KDYH LQ FRPPRQ 7KHVH FRQVLVWHQFLHV DUH XQGRXEWHGO\ GXH WR Df WKH PHGLXPV HPSOR\HGf§KDQGV VSDFH DQG ERG\ DQG Ef WKH WLPH LQYROYHG WR PDNH PHVVDJH XQLWV VKRUWHU EXW VWLOO XQDPELJXRXV

PAGE 24

7KH DERYH DXWKRUV IRXQG WKDW DOWKRXJK LW WRRN ORQJHU WR VLJQ D SDUWLFXODU ZRUG WKDQ WR VD\ LW WKH WLPH LW WRRN WR VD\ D VHQWHQFH DQG WR VLJQ LW ZDV QHDUO\ HTXDO 5HVHDUFK VR IDU KDV \LHOGHG WKH IROORZLQJ DGMXVWPHQWV ZKLFK DOO VLJQHUV LQVWLQFWLYHO\ XWLOL]H Df GRLQJ ZLWKRXW RU WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI ZRUGV ZKLFK GR QRW KLQGHU WKH LQWHQW RI D VWDWHPHQW VXFK DV WKH FRSXOD DUWLFOHV LQIOHFWLRQV DQG VRPH SUHSRVLWLRQV Ef LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RU D VOLJKW YDULDQFH RI D VLJQ ZKLFK PD\ EH XWLOL]HG WR LQGLFDWH RULHQWDWLRQ SURQRPLQDOL]DWLRQ QXPEHU PDQQHU VL]H DQG VKDSH DQG Ff ERGLO\ RU IDFLDO VKLIWV 1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ WKH DERYH WKUHH VLJQLQJ XQLYHUVDOV DUH HOHPHQWV WKDW KDYH DQG VWLOO GR OHDG SHRSOH WR EHOLHYH WKDW VLJQLQJ LV D YHU\ SULPLWLYH ODQJXDJH 'HDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV KDYH FRQVLVWHQWO\ SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU WKDQ GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV )RU WKH IRUPHU WKHLU VLJQ YRFDEXn ODU\ QDWXUDOO\ DSSHDUV D OLWWOH HDUOLHU WKDQ ZRUGV LQ WKH KHDULQJ FKLOG 6WRNRH f 7KLV VLJQ YRFDEXODU\ JURZV DW WKH VDPH UDWH DV D VSHHFK YRFDEXODU\ 2QH RI WKH UHDVRQV IRU WKLV SDUDOOHO DFTXLVLWLRQ DW OHDVW LQ WKH UDWKHU HDUO\ VWDJHV WKXV IDU LQYHVWLJDWHG FRXOG EH WKH HDUO\ LQWHUYHQn WLRQ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH GHDI SDUHQWV ZLWK D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP ZKLFK WKH FKLOG FRXOG HPSOR\ LQ PXFK WKH VDPH PDQQHU WKDW WKH KHDULQJ FKLOG HPSOR\V VSHHFK 7KHUHIRUH WKH FULWLFDO ODQJXDJH SHULRG LV QRW ZDVWHG ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW SHUKDSV WKH GHDI IROORZ WKH VDPH VWDJHV RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI FHUWDLQ ODQJXDJH XQLYHUVDOVf§DV LQ WKH XVH RI QHJDWLRQ DQG RYHUJHQHUDOL]DWLRQf§DV WKHLU KHDULQJ SHHUV %HOOXJL DQG )LVFKHU f DOVR UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH GHDI FKLOGUHQ DSSHDU WR H[SHULHQFH WKH VLJQLQJ HTXLYDOHQW WR LQIDQWLOH EDE\ WDON

PAGE 25

5HVHDUFK LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI $0(6/$1 LQ FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH VWXGLHV RI WKH SURSHUWLHV RI $0(6/$1 LWVHOI DUH VWLOO YHU\ PHDJHU DQG WKHUH LV D FXUUHQW GHEDWH DV WR WKH YDOLGLW\ RI $0(6/$1 DV D ODQJXDJH V\VWHP 6WXGLHV 8WLOL]LQJ 6LJQV IRU &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6FKOHVLQJHU f SHUIRUPHG DQ H[SHULPHQW LQ ZKLFK KLV GHDI VXEn MHFWV ZHUH HQFRXUDJHG WR VLJQ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW HYHQ ZKHQ SHUn PLWWHG WR XWLOL]H WKHLU JHVWXUDOYLVXDO PRGDOLWLHV WKHVH GHDI VXEMHFWV ZHUH XQDEOH WR FRPPXQLFDWH WR HDFK RWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ DJHQW GLUHFW REMHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFW IURP DPRQJ D VHW RI SLFWXUH FDUGV SHUPLWWLQJ DOO SRVVLEOH PXWDWLRQV RI WKHVH WKUHH UROHV %HFDXVH RI WKHVH UHVXOWV LW KDV EHHQ K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW VLQFH WKH GHDI IDLO RQ FHUWDLQ WDVNV RI V\QWDFWLF DELOLW\ HYHQ LQ FDVHV ZKHUH WKH\ DUH SHUPLWWHG WR XVH WKHLU RZQ JHVWXUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKDW Df WKH\ ODFN WKH PHDQV RI H[SUHVVLQJ FHUWDLQ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQGRU Ef WKH\ DUH WRWDOO\ XQDZDUH RI WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KH LPSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV QDWXUDOO\ LV WKDW JHVWXUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LV DQ LQIHULRU ODQJXDJH EHFDXVH RI LWV LQDELOLW\ WR H[n SUHVV PRUH FRPSOH[ DQG DEVWUDFW UHODWLRQVKLSV 0DQ\ SHRSOH RSSRVH VLJQV IRU WKLV YHU\ UHDVRQ ,W LV IHOW WKDW H[SRVXUH WR VLJQV LV FRQWDPLQDWn LQJ LQ WKDW LW ELQGV WKH VLJQHU WR WKH FRQFUHWH DQG GRHV QRW DOORZ WKH HQULFKPHQWV DIIRUGHG E\ WUDGLWLRQDO ODQJXDJH VXFK DV DEVWUDFWLRQ SHUn VRQLILFDWLRQ DQG KXPRU 7KHUH LV KRZHYHU DQHFGRWDO HYLGHQFH RI D FHUn WDLQ W\SH RI KXPRU W\SLFDO RI WKH GHDI DQG WKHUHIRUH QDPHG GHDI KXPRU EXW QR VWDQGDUG SURFHGXUHV KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKLV DVSHFW RI $0(6/$1 2QH LPSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV LV DQ LQDELOLW\ IRU WKH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVHV RI WKH GHDI WR SURFHHG EH\RQG D YHU\ HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO

PAGE 26

7KH V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUH XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQ WKH SUHYLRXVO\ FLWHG 6FKOHVLQJHU H[SHULPHQW ZDV WKH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFW DQG WKH XQGHUO\LQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV D UDWKHU VLPSOH RQH RFFXUULQJ IUHTXHQWO\ LQ GDLO\ OLIH %RGH f UHSOLFDWHG WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZLWK RQH LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUn HQFH 7KH GHDI VXEMHFWV ZHUH PDWFKHG RQ HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG FXOWXUDO IDFWRUV :LWK WKLV YDULDEOH FRQVWDQW KHU VXEMHFWV KDG OLWWOH GLIILFXOW\ GLIIHUHQWLDWLQJ WKHLU SDUWQHUIV VLJQHG PHVVDJH IRU WKH DSSURSULDWH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFW IURP DPRQJ D VHW RI DPELJXRXV SLFWXUHV 7KHVH GHDI VXEMHFWV QRW RQO\ NQHZ DERXW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKLV FRQFHSW EXW FRXOG VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPPXQLFDWH LW WR RWKHUV 3URVH DQG $0(6/$1 &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3UHYLRXV LQYHVWLJDWRUV KDYH DQDO\]HG WKH GHDInV DELOLW\ WR FRPn PXQLFDWH ZRUGV DQG VSHFLILF VHQWHQFH VWUXFWXUHV LQ $0(6/$1 1R IRUPDOn L]HG DQDO\VLV KDV EHHQ PDGH RI WKH GHDInV DELOLW\ WR XWLOL]H $0(6/$1 WR HIIHFWLYHO\ FRPPXQLFDWH SURVH 8VDJH RI IRUPDOL]HG LQ WKLV LQVWDQFH LV WKH UHTXLUHPHQW WR FRPPXQLFDWH LWHPV RI D VSHFLILF SDUDJUDSK DQG QRW WKH PHUH UHWHOOLQJ RI D VWRU\ RU HYHQW ZLWK ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFW LV DOUHDG\ IDPLOLDU 6LQFH ZH DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI ZKDWn HYHU VLJQDOOLQJ V\VWHP LV XWLOL]HG WKH 6HPDQWLF 2EVHUYDWLRQDO $SSURDFK IRU UDWLQJ )&f ZRXOG EH WKH PHWKRG WR HPSOR\ 7KLV DSSURDFK KDV WZR PDLQ SULQFLSOHV Df D UHDOLW\ SULQFLSOHf§ZKLFK LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH LGHDV WKHPVHOYHV DQG Ef D FRRSHUDWLYH SULQFLSOHf§ZKLFK LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH ZD\ WKHVH LGHDV DUH H[SUHVVHG 7KHVH SULQFLSOHV PXVW DOVR EH MXGJHG LQ D WKHPDWLF VWUXFWXUH WKDW LV WKH FRPPXQLFDWRU PXVW NQRZ

PAGE 27

ZKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ WKH OLVWHQHU QHHGV WR NQRZ DQG NHHS WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ SHUWLQHQW WR WKH GHVLUHG JRDO RU LVVXH RI WKH VXEMHFW &ODUN t &ODUN &KDSWHU f 0HPRU\ LV D YLWDO FRPSRQHQW IRU SURVH UHFDOO DQG FRQVHTXHQW FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ WR RWKHUV 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDOV RQ FHUWDLQ WDVNV RI PHPRU\ LV EULHIO\ UHYLHZHG KHUH DQG LW ZLOO EH DVVXPHG IURP WKH GDWD RI SUHYLRXV H[SHULPHQWV VHH VHFWLRQ WKUHH &RJQLWLYH 5HVHDUFKf WKDW WKH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVHV RI WKH GHDI IRU VHPDQWLF RUJDQL]DWLRQ DUH FRPn SDUDEOH WR WKRVH RI QRUPDOV ,Q D SDUDJUDSK UHFDOO VLWXDWLRQ PHPRU\ LQSXW VWRUDJH RXWSXWf DQG OLQJXLVWLF DELOLW\ DUH PDLQ IDFWRUV %HFDXVH VWRULHV DQG SDUDJUDSKV DUH OHQJWK\ YHU\ IHZ H[SHULPHQWV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG RQ DQ\ VXEMHFWV 0RVW RI WKH SURVH UHFDOO E\ QRUPDOV LV LQIHUUHG IURP LQYHVWLJDWLRQV ZKLFK FDQ VWXG\ PHPRU\ LQ D PRUH GLUHFW PDQQHU 7KHVH VWXGLHV ZRXOG LQn FOXGH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV ZLWK ZRUGV OHWWHUV FRQVWLWXHQWV DQG VHQWHQFHV IRU 6KRUW RU /RQJ 7HUP 0HPRU\ &ODUN DQG &ODUN &KDSWHU f FLWHG WKH IROORZLQJ DV VRPH RI WKH FUXFLDO IDFWRUV ZKLFK GHWHUPLQH PHPRU\ IRU SURVH 7\SH RI /DQJXDJHf§DV LQ D OHFWXUH VWRU\ SRHP RU XQUHODWHG VHQWHQFHV RI D SV\FKRORJLFDO H[SHULPHQW ,QSXWf§DV LQ FDVHV RI KHDULQJ RU UHDGLQJ WKH PDn WHULDO DQG WKH VSHFLILF LQVWUXFWLRQV DV WR ZKDW WR UHWDLQ IRU H[DPSOH ZRUG IRU ZRUG PHPRUL]DWLRQ JHQHUDO PHDQLQJ RI WKH SDVVDJH RU QRWDWLRQ RI SDUWLFXODU IHDWXUHV DV LQ JUDPPDWLFDO HUURUV 5HWHQWLRQ ,QWHUYDOf§DV LQ GHOD\HG RU LPPHGLDWH UHn FDOO RI WKH PDWHULDO 2XWSXWf§DV LQ FDVHV ZKHUH YHUEDWLP RU JHQHUDO LGHD RU MXGJPHPHQWV RI ZKHWK U D WHVW VHQWHQFH ZDV SUHVHQW LQ WKH RULJLQDO IRUP S f

PAGE 28

&HUWDLQ ELDVHV DUH HYLGHQW LQ FRQVWUXFWLQJ VHQWHQFHV IURP PHPRU\ LQSXW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ QRW DFWXDOO\ LQ WKH VHQWHQFH WHQGHQF\ WRZDUGV VLPSOH XQPDUNHGf V\QWD[ VWURQJ SUHIHUHQFH LQ (QJOLVK IRU WKH VXEMHFW WR DSSHDU LQ WKH LQLWLDO SRVLWLRQ SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH DIILUPDWLYH RYHU WKH QHJDWLYH ZLWK FODXVHV D SUHIHUHQFH WR GHVFULEH WKH HYHQWV LQ RUGHU RI WKHLU DFWXDO RFFXUUHQFH&ODUN t &ODUN &KDSWHU f 7KH NLQG DQG DPRXQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ UHPHPEHUHG GHSHQGV FULWLFDOO\ RQ WKH VWXG\ VWUDWHJLHV SHRSOH XVH 7KLV FDQ EH VHHQ E\ WKH GLIIHUHQW SHUIRUPDQFHV RI SHRSOH ZKR DUH JLYHQ WKH VDPH WHVW EXW SUHVHQWHG ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQVWUXFWLRQV 7KHUH DUH RWKHU JHQHUDO LPSOLFDWLRQV HYLGHQW LQ PHPRU\ UHFDOO WDVNV L WR REWDLQ PHDQLQJ UDWKHU WKDQ ZRUG IRU ZRUG UHWHQWLRQ D WHQGHQF\ WR GUDZ WKH REYLRXV FRQFOXVLRQ D UHOLDQFH RQ ZRUOG NQRZOHGJH LQ FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK WKH UHDOLW\ SULQFLSOH D WHQGHQF\ WR XVH UHIHUHQWVf§DWWHPSWV WR LQWHJUDWH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK ZKDW LV DOUHDG\ NQRZQ D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUGV XWLOL]LQJ LQGLUHFW PHDQLQJ ZKHUH WKH OLVWHQHU WULHV WR EXLOG WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV KH WKLQNV KH ZDV PHDQW WR EXLOG D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUGV WKH FUHDWLRQ RI JOREDO UHSUHn VHQWDWLRQV ZKHUH ZLWK HDFK QHZ VHQWHQFH SHRSOH FUHDWH QHZ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV XQUHODWHG WR DQ\ VLQJOH VHQWHQFH &ODUN t &ODUN &KDSWHU f $V OLQJXLVWLF DELOLW\ LV RQH RI WKH WZR HVVHQWLDO IHDWXUHV RI SURVH UHFDOO LW LV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW WR UHPHPEHU WKLV SDUDPRXQW IHDWXUH ZKHQ FKRRVLQJ D UHFDOO SDVVDJH IRU DQ\ SRSXODWLRQ 1DWXUDOO\ WKH FKRLFH ZLOO GHSHQG XSRQ WKH SDUWLFXODU UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ EHLQJ SRVHG )RU H[DPSOH VLQFH RQH RI WKH TXHVWLRQV RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKH DELOLW\ RI $0(6/$1

PAGE 29

WR HIIHFWLYHO\ FRPPXQLFDWH QHZ LGHDV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ OLQJXLVWLF FRPSHWHQFH LV WKH PDMRU LVVXH 7KHUHIRUH WKH SURVH SDVVDJH IRU WKLV VWXG\ LV V\QWDFWLFDOO\ UHODWLYHO\ VLPSOH 5HVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG E\ 2GRP DQG %ODQWRQ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW V\Qn WDFWLF RUGHU GLG QRW IDFLOLWDWH PHPRU\ UHFDOO E\ KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG VWXn GHQWV DV LW GLG IRU WKH KHDULQJ 7KH V\QWDFWLFDOO\ RUGHUHG VWLPXOL SUHVHQWHG LQ WKHLU SDLUHG DVVRFLDWH SDUDGLJP FRQVLVWHG RI Df SDUWLDO VHQWHQFHV >9HUE 9f@ SKUDVHV RU SDUWLDO >QRXQ 1f@ DQG 9 SKUDVHV DQG Ef IUDJPHQWV >SDUWLDO QRXQ SKUDVHV 13f DQG SDUWLDO YHUE SKUDVH 93f@ 2WKHU VWLPXOL ZHUH DV\QWDFWLFDOO\ RUGHUHG )XUWKHU UHVHDUFK RQ WKH HIIHFW RI V\QWDFWLF RUGHU RQ UHFDOO SHUn IRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI DQG KHDULQJ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 7RPEOLQ f +RZn HYHU KH FKDQJHG KLV H[SHULPHQWDO SDUDGLJP IURP WKDW RI 2GRP DQG %ODQWRQ +H VWXGLHG LPPHGLDWH UHFDOO UDWKHU WKDQ UHFDOO IURP D SDLUHG DVVRFLDWH WDVN ZKLFK UHTXLUHG D ORQJHU UHWHQWLRQ SHULRG 7KH VWLPXOL FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWYHUEREMHFW 692f VWULQJV RI DQG ZRUGV LQ OHQJWK >5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW ERWK QRUPDOV &ODUN t &ODUN &KDSWHU f DQG HVSHFLDOO\ WKH GHDI VHH VHFWLRQ WKUHH /LQJXLVWLF 5HVHDUFKf DUH ELDVHG WRZDUG WKLV V\QWDFWLFDO VWUDWHJ\@ 7KH VDPH ZRUGV WKDW DSSHDUHG IRU WKH RUGHUHG VWLPXOL ZHUH UHFDVW LQ DQ DV\QWDFWLFDO PDQQHU WR IRUP WKH UDQGRP RUGHUHG JURXS $OWKRXJK WKH KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG JURXS GLG SHUn IRUP OHVV DFFXUDWHO\ XQGHU ERWK FRQGLWLRQV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKHLU KHDUn LQJ SHHUV DQDO\VLV UHYHDOHG D GHFLGHG SUHIHUHQFH DPRQJ ERWK JURXSV IRU WKH RUGHUHG VHQWHQFHV 7RPEOLQ UHJDUGHG UHFDOO IDFLOLWDWHG E\ V\QWD[ IRU KLV GHDI VXEn MHFWVf§DV RSSRVHG WR WKH RSSRVLWH ILQGLQJV RI 2GRP DQG %ODQWRQf§DV EHLQJ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH IROORZLQJ IHDWXUHV Df UHOLDQFH RQ 6KRUW

PAGE 30

UDWKHU WKDQ /RQJ 7HUP 0HPRU\ DQG Ef VWLPXOL PDWHULDO ZKLFK XWLOL]HG WKH GHDIfV SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ WR DVVLJQ WKH 69 VWUDWHJ\ WR DOO SKDVHV DQG VHQWHQFHV 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ VHYHUDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI SURVH UHFDOO LWVHOI :DOWHU .LQWVFK f SURSRVHG D KLHUDUFKLFDO WKHRU\ RI FRQWHQW UHSUHVHQn WDWLRQ LQ WH[WV RU WKH DPRXQW RI PHDQLQJ ZKLFK PLJKW EH FRPSXWHG WR SKUDVHV ZLWKLQ D JLYHQ SDVVDJHf +H DGPLWWHG WKDW KLV WKHRU\ ZDV WRR JHQHUDO DQG WRR LQFRPSOHWH 1R SURFHVVLQJ PRGHOV ZHUH JLYHQ +RZHYHU LW GRHV DIIRUG WKH UHVHDUFKHU VRPH UDWKHU V\VWHPDWL]HG PDQQHU LQ RUGHU WKDW WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ IRU PHDQLQJ IRU WH[WV FDQ EHFRPH WKH VXEMHFW RI H[SHULPHQWDO GHVLJQ 8VDJH RI D KLHUDUFKLFDO PHPRU\ PRGHO LV QRW XQLTXH &ROOLQV DQG 4XLOOLDQ f XVHG LW LQ DSSOLFDWLRQ WR ZRUGV )RU H[DPSOH WKH SUHVHQn WDWLRQ RI RQH ZRUG DV LQ FDQDU\ ZRXOG PRVW UHDGLO\ DFWLYDWH WKH QH[W KLJKHU FDWHJRU\ LQ WKLV FDVH ELUGf RI ZKLFK LW LV D PHPEHU .LQWVFKrV WKHRU\ LV EDVHG RQ WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WH[W EDVHV DUH VWUXFWXUHG KLHUDUFKLFDOO\ E\ D UHSHWLWLRQ UXOH 7KLV UXOH UHIHUV WR WKH LGHD WKDW JLYHQ D VHW RI SURSRVLWLRQV RQH RU PRUHf LV GHVLJQDWHG UDWKHU DUELWUDULO\ DW WKLV WLPH E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DV WKH WRSLFDO RU WKHPDWLF HOHPHQWVf 7KLV UXOH ZRXOG WKHUHE\ VSHFLI\ ZKLFK SURSRVLWLRQV DUH FRQQHFWHG WR RWKHU SURSRVLWLRQV WKXV FRQVWLWXWLQJ OHYHOV RI D KLHUDUFK\ 7KH WKHPDWLF SURSRVLWLRQ LV DW WKH WRS RI WKH KLHUDUFK\ )RU H[DPSOH LQ D VWRU\ DERXW DLUSODQH SLORWV DQG WKHLU PDQ\ MREV WKH VHQWHQFH $LUSODQH SLORWV KDYH PDQ\ LPSRUWDQW MREV FRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG WKHPDWLF 6XERUGLQDWH WR WKLV OHYHO ZRXOG EH DOO SURSHUWLHV WKDW VKDUH DQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH ILUVW WKHPDWLFf OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQ 7R FRQWLQXH ZLWK WKH DERYH H[DPSOH VRPH VHFRQG VXSHURUGLQDWHf OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQV

PAGE 31

ZRXOG EH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ EHWZHHQ FLWLHV UHVFXHV DQG GURSSLQJ IRRG $ WKLUG VXERUGLQDWHf OHYHO RI SURSRVLWLRQV PD\ EH GHWHUPLQHG E\ VHOHFWLQJ WKRVH HOHPHQWV ZKLFK VKDUH DJUHHPHQW ZLWK DQ\ RI WKH VHFn RQGDU\ OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQV EXW QRW ZLWK D ILUVW OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQ >&RQn WLQXLQJ ZLWK WKH H[DPSOH WKH SKUDVHV RI SHRSOH RI IUHLJKW DQG RI PDLO ZRXOG DOO WKUHH EH WKLUG VXERUGLQDWHf OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQV RI WKH VHFRQG VXSHURUGLQDWHf OHYHO SURSRVLWLRQ WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ@ .LQWVFK QRWHG WKDW DV ZLWK WKH WKHPDWLF SURSRVLWLRQVf WKH VXSHURUGLQDWH SURSRVLn WLRQV DUH FKRVHQ LQWXLWLYHO\ .LQWVFK ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ HYDOXDWLQJ KLV WKHRU\ DQG FKRVH UHDGLQJ UDWH DQG WHVW VWUXFWXUH DV GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV IRU KLV H[SHULPHQW VLQFH RQH RI WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI KLV KLHUDUFKLFDO WKHRU\ ZDV WKDW WKH QXPEHU RI SURSRVLWLRQV VKRXOG KDYH SUHGLFWDEOH SV\FKRORJLFDO HIIHFWV +LV H[n SHULPHQWV ZLWK WKH QXPEHU DQG W\SH RI SURSRVLWLRQV DV ZHOO DV V\QWDFWLFDO FRPSOH[LW\ ZDV UHODWHG WR UHDGLQJ WLPH DQG WKH QXPEHU DQG W\SH RI SURSRVLn WLRQV UHFDOOHG $ VXPPDU\ RI WKH UHVXOWV IURP KLV H[SHULPHQWV WHQG WR JLYH YDOLGLW\ WR KLV WKHRU\ 5HDGLQJ WLPH FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG DV D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ RI WKH QXPEHU RI SURSRVLWLRQV SURFHVVHG GXULQJ UHDGLQJ DQG WKH OHQJWK RI WKH WH[W 7LPH SHU SURSRVLWLRQ LV YDULDEOH VHF IRU VKRUW KLVWRULFDO QDUUDWLYHV VHF IRU WKH ORQJHVW SV\FKRORJLFDO GHILQLWLRQf 7KH ORQJHVW SDUDJUDSK KDV RQO\ EHHQ ZRUGV 7KH PDQQHU ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV SURFHVV D WHVW LV UHODWHG WR WKH VWUXFWXUDO UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ WKH SURSRVLWLRQV 0DQ\GLIIHUHQWDUJXPHQWV UHTXLUH ORQJHU UHDGLQJ WLPH WKDQ IHZGLIIHUHQWDUJXPHQWV KRZHYHU WKH QXPEHU RI SURSRVLWLRQV UHFDOOHG IRU ERWK WH[W W\SHV LV WKH VDPH 6XSHURUGLQDWHV DUH GHILQHG WKH EHVW DQG DV WKH OHYHO RI SURSRVLWLRQV GHVFHQGV VR GRHV UHFDOO

PAGE 32

6XSHURUGLQDWHV ZHUH EHWWHU UHFDOOHG UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH RU VHULDO SRVLWLRQ $ SULPDF\ HIIHFW ZDV REVHUYHG IRU WKH VXSHUn RUGLQDWHV 1R SULPDF\ HIIHFW ZDV VKRZQ IRU WKH VXERUGLQDWHV 1R UHFHQF\ HIIHFW ZDV QRWHG IRU ERWK WKH VXSHUn RUGLQDWHV DQG WKH VXERUGLQDWHV.LQWVFK &KDSWHU f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n VHDUFK DV WR WKH H[DFW SURSHUWLHV LQYROYHG LV QHHGHG 'HDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV KDYH DQ DGYDQWDJH RYHU WKHLU SHHUV RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV LQ WKDW WKH IRUPHU DUH JLYHQ D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP DW RQFH GXULQJ WKH YHU\ HDUO\ \HDUV ZKLFK VRPH DXWKRUV EHOLHYH FULWLFDO IRU PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ 'HDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV GLVSOD\ VLPLODU VWDJHV RI LQn IDQWLOH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ VLJQV DV KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ GR IRU VSHHFK DFTXLVL WLRQ 0RUH H[DFWLQJ UHVHDUFK LV QHHGHG LQ WKLV DUHD

PAGE 33

,W KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV KDYH DQ DGYDQWDJH LQ WUDGLWLRQDO ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJ WKDQ GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV 0RUH UHVHDUFK LV QHHGHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKLV WUDGLWLRQDO ODQn JXDJH DGYDQWDJH SHUVLVWV IRU ROGHU GHDI DGROHVFHQWV IRU PRUH FRPSOH[ V\QWDFWLFDO WDVNV 7KHUH LV D JUHDW FRQWURYHUV\ DV WR WKH YDOLGLW\ RI $0(6/$1 DV D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP DQG LWV DELOLW\ WR DGHTXDWHO\ FRPPXQLFDWH DEVWUDFW WKRXJKWV FRQFHSWV RU EDVLF UHODWLRQVKLSV $JDLQ PRUH UHn VHDUFK LV QHHGHG %HFDXVH RI WKH VSHFLILF SURSHUWLHV RI $0(6/$1 WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI WR FRPPXQLFDWH FRQFHSWV DQG LGHDV LQ WKHLU YLVXDOJHVWXUDO PRGH KDV EHHQ TXHVWLRQHG WKHUHIRUH D UDWLQJ RI WKH GHDIV DELOLW\ WR FRPn PXQLFDWH LQ WKHLU SUHIHUUHG PHGLXP $0(6/$1f VRPH VWDQGDUG SDUDJUDSK LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG Df JLYH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ WR WKLV GHEDWHG TXHVWLRQ Ef KHOS DVFHUWDLQ LI SHUIRUPDQFH RQ VSHFLILF OLQJXLVWLF LWHPV LV D UHIOHFWLRQ RI JHQHUDO FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLWLHV Ff FRQWULEXWH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWR WKH UHODWLYHO\ XQNQRZQ DUHD RI WKH GHDIIV FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVLQJ IRU PHPRU\ IRU SURVH ZKHQ WHVW GHVLJQ DQG UHFDOO UDWLQJV VLPLODU WR .LQWVFKIV WKHRU\ DUH XWLOL]HG DQG UHVXOWV FRPSDUHG ZLWK KLV SUHOLPLQDU\ H[SHULPHQWDO ILQGLQJV IRU KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV /DQJXDJH $VVHVVPHQW ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI LV YLHZHG LQ WKH PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO OLQJXLVWLF PHWKRGV RI (QJOLVK 7KH TXHVWLRQ

PAGE 34

KHUH LV QRW RQH RI FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHQHVV EXW UDWKHU WKH DELOLW\ DQG H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH GHDI DUH DEOH WR XWLOL]H DQGRU XQGHUVWDQG WKH V\QWD[ RI D QDWXUDO ODQJXDJH 7R ZKDW H[WHQW DQG LQ ZKDW ZD\V GRHV WKH V\QWD[ RI WKH GHDI GLIIHU IURP WKDW RI D KHDULQJ FKLOG DFTXLULQJ (QJOLVK" (GXFDWRUV RI WKH GHDI ZKR KDYH FRQWLQXDOO\ DWWHPSWHG DOEHLW IRU WKH PRVW SDUW XQVXFFHVVIXOO\ WR WHDFK (QJOLVK IURP LQIDQF\ WKURXJK \RXQJ DGXOWKRRG DUH SDUWLFXODUO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH VSHFLILF UHVXOWV RI V\QWDFn WLF VWXGLHV ,W ZRXOG EH LQYDOXDEOH WR NQRZ LI RQH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH DV RSSRVHG WR DQRWKHU ZRXOG EH PRUH LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH GHDIfV WUXH OLQn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n ZD\V EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG DV SULPDU\ IDFWRUV IRU SODFLQJ KXPDQV LQ D UDWKHU VSHFLDO FDWHJRU\ DSDUW IURP RWKHU DQLPDOV 6SHHFK LV DFTXLUHG E\ SUDFn WLFDOO\ HYHU\RQH DQG SURFHHGV DORQJ IDLUO\ FRQVLVWHQW VWDJHV ZLWK OLWWOH JHRJUDSKLFDO RU FXOWXUDO YDULDWLRQ 6SHHFK ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WKH RXWZDUG PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI ODQJXDJH /DQJXDJH LQ WXUQ ZDV YLHZHG DV QHFHVVDU\ IRU SHUIRUPLQJ WKH PHGLDWLQJ SURFHVVHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKRXJKW 6SHHFK DQG ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ DUH VR XQLTXH WKDW LW FDXVHG WKH $QFLHQWV WR YLHZ LW DV D GLUHFW JLIW IURP WKH JRGV 7KHUHIRUH DQ\ HYHQW

PAGE 35

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f 5HPQDQWV RI WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ RI VSHHFK ODQJXDJH DQG WKRXJKW UHPDLQ WRGD\ DV LQ WKH XVDJH RI VXFK H[SUHVVLRQV DV GHDI DQG GXPE 6SHHFK SDWKRORJLVWV UHSRUW WKDW TXHVWLRQV RIWHQ DULVH DV WR WKH H[WHQW RI WKH FRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ RI D VSHHFKOHVV LQGLYLGXDO &XWWLQJ DQG .DYDQDJK f SUHVHQWHG D JRRG IUDPHZRUN IRU YLHZLQJ VSHHFK DQG ODQJXDJH ZKLFK ZHUH VHHQ DV D PRGHO RI VHSDUDWH HQWLWLHV LQ D V\PELRWLF SDUWQHUVKLS SHUIRUPLQJ VLPLODU IXQFWLRQV WRZDUGV VLPLODU HQGV EXW DW GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV S f &DXWLRQ ZDV RIIHUHG DERXW WKH GDQJHU RI IRUJHWWLQJ WKH LQWHUUHODWHG IXQFWLRQV RI WKHVH WZR V\VWHPV +RZHYHU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHLU WKHRU\ VSHHFK ZRUNV XSZDUG LQ WKH FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ FKDLQ WR FRQVWUDLQ DQG DOWHU ODQJXDJH ZKLOH ODQJXDJH GHVFHQGV LQ WKH RSSRVLWH GLUHFWLRQ WR DOWHU VSHHFK WKH YRFDO WUDFW DQG SHUKDSV WKH HDU 6HYHUDO LQWXLWLYH DQG ORJLFDO DUJXPHQWV ZHUH SURSRVHG IRU WKLV VHSDUDWLRQ Df FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH UXOHV RI SKRQRORJ\ ZLWK WKRVH RI V\QWD[ DQG VHPDQWLFV Ef FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VSHHFK LQ

PAGE 36

PDQ DQG LQ WKH FKLOG DQG Ff FRPSDULVRQ RI VLJQ ODQJXDJH WR VSHHFK ,W ZDV FRQFOXGHG WKDW LW ZDV SRVVLEOH WR KDYH VSHHFK ZLWKRXW ODQJXDJH DV LQ IOXHQW DSKDVLFV DQG EDEEOLQJ LQIDQWVf DQG ODQJXDJH ZLWKRXW VSHHFK DV LQ RUDO DSUD[LDf +RZHYHU WKHUH ZHUH VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW RSLQLRQV DV WR SRVVLEOH HQWULHV IRU WKH FDWHJRU\ RI ODQJXDJH ZLWKRXW VSHHFK :RXOG LW EH DF IW FHSWDEOH WR SODFH WKH FKLPSDQ]HHV ZKR XVH VLJQV RU V\PEROV LQ WKLV FDWHn JRU\" $V IRU WKH GHDI )XUWKnV ERRN 7KLQNLQJ :LWKRXW /DQJXDJH f ZDV HYLGHQFH IRU WKH SRVLWLRQ ZKHUHDV %HOOXJL DQG .OLPDV ERRN 7KH 6LJQV RI /DQJXDJH LQ SUHVVf ZDV HYLGHQFH IRU DQRWKHU SRVLWLRQ +RZHYHU WKH DEVHQFH RI VSHHFK GRHV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ SUHVXSSRVH WKH DEVHQFH RI ODQJXDJH DQGRU WKRXJKW %HFDXVH RI WKH KHWHURJHQHLW\ RI WKH GHDI ODQJXDJH DVVHVVPHQW KDV DOZD\V EHHQ GLIILFXOW 7KHUHIRUH RQH SRSXODU PHWKRG KDV EHHQ WR UHODWH ODQJXDJH WR FRJQLWLRQ DQG FRQFHSW IRUPDWLRQ DQG WKHQ HYDOXDWH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ ODQJXDJH IUHH WDVNV 3HUKDSV WKH PRVW SUROLILF ZULWHU LQ WKLV ILHOG KDV EHHQ +DQV )XUWK +H VXPPDUL]HG KLV UHVXOWV f IRU WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ RQ FHUWDLQ 3LDJHWLDQ WDVNV DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV HVn VHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH DV WKDW RI KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ 7KXV DW OHDVW IRU WKH DJHV DQG FRQFHSWV HYDOXDWHG WKH OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ LQFRPSHWHQW GHDI SHUIRUPHG ; FRJQLWLYH WDVNV RQ D SDU ZLWK WKHLU KHDULQJ SHHUV +LV UHVXOWV DUH QRW ZLWKRXW FRQWUDGLFWLRQ EXW )XUWK DWWULEXWHV WKH SRRUHU SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI LQ WKHVH VWXGLHV WR WKH LQIOXHQFH RI HQYLURQPHQWDO IDFWRUV DQGRU WHVW GHVLJQ ,Q IDFW WKH GHWULPHQWDO HIn IHFWV RI LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]DWLRQ RQ WKH GHDIIV SHUIRUPDQFH IRU VRPH RI WKHVH WDVNV KDYH EHHQ UHSRUWHG 5DYLY 6KDUDQ t 6WUDXVV f

PAGE 37

,Q D UHYLHZ RI DOO VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG ZLWK GHDI DQG KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ )XUWK f DWWHPSWHG WR LVRODWH WKH HIIHFWV RI OLQJXLVWLF GHILFLHQF\ $UHDV ZHUH JURXSHG DFFRUGLQJ WR Df UXOH OHDUQLQJ Ef ORJLFDO V\PEROV Ff 3LDJHWLDQ WDVNV Gf PHPRU\ DQG Hf SHUFHSWLRQ +H FRQFOXGHG WKDW D VLQJOH VSHFLILF FRJQLWLYH DUHD FDQQRW EH GHVLJQDWHG ZKHUH WKH GHDI SHUn IRUP SRRUHU WKDQ WKH KHDULQJ FRQWUROV 6RPH DUHDV ZKHUH WKH \RXQJHU GHDI ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ SRRUHU ZHUH ORFDWHG EXW WKH\ LPSURYHG ZLWK PDWXUDn WLRQ DQG ILQDOO\ HTXDOOHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKHLU KHDULQJ SHHUV 7KH VSHFLILF WDVNV PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG ZKHQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ WKH DERYH GDWD 6LQFODLU'H=ZDUW f GLG ILQG V\QWDFWLF DELOLW\ FRUn UHODWHG ZLWK WKH 3LDJHWLDQ FRQVHUYDWLRQ WDVN 7KLV UHVXOW ZDV LQ RSSRVLn WLRQ WR WKDW RI )XUWK ZKRVH WDVN ZDV PRUH HOHPHQWDU\ *RRGQRZ f FDXWLRQHG WKDW W\SH RI WKRXJKW DQG VWUHQJWK RU VWDELOLW\ RI WKRXJKW VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKDW LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR WHVW IDPLOLDU VLJQLILn FDQW PDWHULDO WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW WKH FKLOG FDQ GR EXW LW LV HTXDOO\ LPSRUWDQW WR GLVFRYHU LI WKH UHVSRQVH LV PHUHO\ D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI SDVW H[SHULHQFH UDWKHU WKDQ DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI H[SHULHQFH )HZ VWXGLHV KDYH WULHG WR DVVHVV VHPDQWLF RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKURXJK ODQJXDJH 7ZHQH\ DQG +RHPDQQ f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

PAGE 38

7ZHQH\ +RHPDQQ DQG $QGUHZV f DOVR VWXGLHG VHPDQWLF RUJDQL]Dn WLRQ WKURXJK WKH FOXVWHULQJ RI QRXQV E\ GHDI DQG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV :KHQ WKH VWLPXOL ZHUH HTXDOO\ IDPLOLDU WR ERWK JURXSV QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FOXVn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n WLRQ VLQFH WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFH UHIOHFWV PDQ\ RI WKH VDPH GLIILFXOWLHV RI WKH GHDI 'HSHQGLQJ XSRQ WKH VSHFLILF WDVN DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH ODQJXDJH RI QRUPDO KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ XVXDOO\ UHYHDOV DQ DSSUR[Ln PDWLRQ E\ WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ JURXS WR WKDW RI WKH QRUPDOV DQG D YHU\ OLPLWHG DQG UHWDUGHG SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI +RZHYHU ZLWK FHUWDLQ PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUHV WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ SHUIRUP YHU\ VLPLODUO\ WR WKH GHDI 6RPHWLPHV WKLV GLIILFXOW\ LV RQO\ UHYHDOHG WKURXJK WHVWV H[SOLFLWO\ GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D SDUWLFXODU FRQVWUXFWLRQ ,W LV QRW EHFDXVH WKHVH GHILFLHQW DUHDV DUH XQLPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH\ UHPDLQ XQQRWLFHG EXW UDWKHU WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ FKLOG PD\ VXFFHHG DQG IXQFWLRQ DGHTXDWHO\ LQ VSLWH RI WKHP ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH

PAGE 39

GHILFLHQFLHV RI WKH FKLOG DUH TXLWH DSSDUHQW 2Q PDQ\ WDVNV KLV SHUn IRUPDQFH LV OLPLWHG DEVHQW RU LQGLFDWLYH RI LPPDWXUH DQGRU GHYLDQW VWUDWHJLHV %UDQQRQ f FRPSDUHG WKH VSRNHQ RXWSXW RI QRUPDO KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ DFFRUGLQJ WR D OLQJXLVWLF ZRUG FODVV V\VWHP GHYLVHG E\ -RQHV *RRGPDQ DQG :HSPDQ f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n SDLUHG JURXSV 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKRVH RI D SUHYLRXV VWXG\ %UDQQRQ t 0XUU\ f ZKLFK XWLOL]HG WKH VDPH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV EXW DQDO\]HG WKH VHQWHQFHV DFFRUGLQJ WR FDWHJRULHV VXJJHVWHG E\ 0\NOHEXVW f 6HQWHQFHV ZHUH WKHQ VFRUHG DV WR Df DGGLWLRQV Ef RPLVVLRQV Ff ZRUG VXEVWLWXWLRQV DQG Gf ZRUG RUGHU 7KLV SURFHGXUH UHYHDOHG WKH WHQGHQF\ RI WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG HVSHFLDOO\ WKH GHDI WR XWLOL]H VLPSOH 69 VHQWHQFH RUGHU

PAGE 40

,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH D KLHUDUFK\ IRU JUDSKLF SKRQHWLF DQG DVn VRFLDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ UHVSRQVH VHOHFWLRQ %ODQWRQ 1XQQDOO\ DQG 2GRP f FRPSDUHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI GHDI DQG KHDULQJ VWXGHQWV RQ WKUHH W\SHV RI ZRUG DVVRFLDWLRQ WDVNV ZKLFK FRQVLVWHG RI DVVRFLDWLYH UK\PLQJ DQG JUDSKHPLF VLPLODULWLHV %RWK JURXSV KDG WKH VDPH RUGHU RI SUHIHUHQFH DVVRFLDWHG JUDSKHPL FDOO\ VLPLODU DQG UK\PLQJ SDLUV 7KHVH UHVXOWV OHG WKH DXWKRUV WR K\n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n XVH VLPSOH 69 RUGHU LQ VHQWHQFHV 7KHVH VDPH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV EXW LQ D IDU PRUH SURQRXQFHG GHJUHH ZHUH DOVR REVHUYHG IRU WKH GHDI 5DWKHU WKDQ LQYHVWLJDWLQJ PHUH ZRUG FRXQW DQGRU FDWHJRU\ GLIIHUn HQFHV RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH H[DPLQHG WKH XVDJH RI VSHFLILF FRQVWUXFn WLRQV LQ WKH VHQWHQFH XQLW FRQVLGHUHG DV D ZKROH :LOFR[ DQG 7RELQ f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ RQ FHUWDLQ YHUE FRQVWUXFWLRQV 3UHOLPLQDU\ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV KDG UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR ZHUH DSn SUR[LPDWHO\ \HDUV ROG KDG DOUHDG\ PDVWHUHG WKH VLPSOHU FRQVWUXFWLRQV RI QHJDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ IRUPDWLRQ DQG SDVW WHQVH 7KH IROORZLQJ YHUE

PAGE 41

FRQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG SUHVHQW WHQVH WKH DX[LOLDULHV EHLQJ KDYHHQ ZLOOf SDVVLYH DQG QHJDWLYH SDVVLYH 7KHUH ZHUH WZR VHWV HDFK RI ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG VL[ VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH FRQVWUXFWHG DQG XVHG XQGHU WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLn WLRQV Df UHSHWLWLRQ ZLWK YLVXDO VWLPXOL Ef UHFDOO ZKHUH WKH SLFn WXUH ZDV VKRZQ DQG WKH DSSURSULDWH VHQWHQFH ZDV UHTXLUHG DQG Ff UHSHWLn WLRQ ZLWKRXW YLVXDO VWLPXOL %RWK JURXSV KDG PRUH GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH UHFDOO WDVN 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG JURXS VKDGRZHG WKDW RI WKH QRUPDOV RQ DOO FRQVWUXFWLRQV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH DX[LOLDU\ KDYHHQ DQG WKH QHJDWLYH SDVVLYH 7KH DXWKRUV LQWHUSUHWHG WKH UHVXOWV DV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH KDUG RIKHDULQJ SHUIRUPDQFH GLIIHUHG LQ GHJUHH UDWKHU WKDQ NLQG 7KH\ FLWHG WKH ILQGLQJV RI 0HQ\XN f IRU KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ IURP WR \HDUV RI DJH 7KH SHUFHQWDJH FRUUHFW IRU WKHVH FKLOGUHQ ZDV SUDFWLFDOO\ WKH VDPH DV WKDW DFKLHYHG E\ :LOFR[ DQG 7RELQV ROGHU EXW KDUGRIKHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ &RUUHFW 8VDJH 0HQ\XN :LOFR[ t 7RELQ EHLQJ b b SDVVLYH b b KDYHHQ b b 3 4XLJOH\ DQG 3RZHU f JDYH WKUHH W\SHV RI SDVVLYH VHQWHQFHV WR D JURXS RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ UDQJLQJ LQ DJH IURP WR \HDUV 5HYHUVDEOH QRQUHYHUVDEOH DQG DJHQW GHOHWHG UHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV ZHUH HYDOXDWHG 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH UHTXLUHG WR PRYH WR\V UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH VXEMHFW DQG RE b MHFW RI WKH VHQWHQFH )RU WKH SURGXFWLRQ WDVN DQ LQFRPSOHWH VHQWHQFH QDPLQJ WKH VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW ZDV SUHVHQWHG XQGHU D SLFWXUH 7KH VXEn MHFWV ZHUH DVNHG ZKDW KDSSHQHG DQG WKH\ UHVSRQGHG XVLQJ RQH RU PRUH RI

PAGE 42

D VHW RI SURYLGHG ZRUGV 6RPH RI WKH ZRUGV HPSOR\HG ZHUH ZDV 9HUEHG E\ 9HUELQJ DQG GLG 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZHUH VHHQ DV D IXQFn WLRQ RI DJH $ KLHUDUFK\ RI GLIILFXOW\ DSSHDUHG ZKLFK IURP OHDVW WR PRVW GLIILFXOW ZDV QRQUHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV UHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV DQG DJHQW GHOHWHG SDVVLYHV 3UDFWLFDOO\ DOO RI WKH KHDULQJ KDG PDVWHUHG WKH FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI WKH SDVVLYH E\ DJH ZKHUHDV WKLV ZDV QRW WKH FDVH IRU WKH GHDI HYHQ DW WKH DJHV RI RU 1RQH RI WKH ROGHU GHDI DGROHVFHQWV PHW WKH b LWHPV FRUUHFWf SDVVLQJ FULWHULRQ IRU HDFK VWUXFn WXUH 7KH DYHUDJH FRUUHFW VFRUHV IRU WKH ROGHU GHDI DGROHVFHQWV ZHUH b IRU QRQUHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV b IRU UHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV DQG b IRU DJHQW GHOHWHG SDVVLYHV ,W VHHPHG DSSDUHQW WKDW WKH GHDI RIWHQ RQO\ XVHG E\f RI WKH DJHQW DV D PDUNHU IRU WKH SDVVLYH 7KLV VWUDWHJ\ FRXSOHG ZLWK WKH GHDI7V RYHUn XVH RI 69 ZRUG RUGHU IRU VHQWHQFH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ FRXOG FDXVH WKHP D JUHDW GHDO RI FRQIXVLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ UHDGLQJ +HDULQJ \HDU ROGV KDYH LQWHUSUHWHG SDVVLYHV LQ WKLV PDQQHU )RU FRUUHFW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI LQGLUHFW DQG GLUHFW REMHFWV \RXQJHU FKLOGUHQ UHO\ VROHO\ RQ WKH PDUNHU WR DV LQ +H JDYH WKH IORZHUV WRA WKH JLUO 2OGHU FKLOGUHQ KRZHYHU FDQ GLIIHUHQWLDWH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFWV E\ RWKHU VWUDWHJLHV 6HQWHQFH DPELJXLW\ PD\ DOVR EH FODULILHG E\ Df LQVHUWLRQ RI DQ DUWLFOH 7KH\ IHG KHU GRJ WKH FDQGLHV RU 7KH\ IHG KHU WKH GRJ FDQGLHVf DQG Ef DSSURSULDWH GLVMXQFWXUH DV LQ D SDXVH RU VWUHVV 6FKROHV 7DQLV DQG $QGHUVRQ f SUHVHQWHG D SLFWXUH YHULILFDn WLRQ WDVN LQ RUGHU WR DVFHUWDLQ WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ E\ KDUGRIKHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ IRU GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFWV LQ VHQWHQFHV 7KHVH VWXGHQWV

PAGE 43

ZHUH DWWHQGLQJ FODVVHV LQ UHJXODU SXEOLF VFKRROV DQG UDQJHG LQ DJH IURP \HDUV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH VKRZQ D VHULHV RI VOLGHV ZLWK HDFK VOLGH FRQWDLQLQJ IRXU SLFWXUHV 7KHVH SLFWXUHV LQFOXGHG Df D % 5HDGLQJ ZKHUH WKH DUWLFOH ZDV LQVHUWHG EHIRUH WKH ODVW WZR QRPLQDO HOHn PHQWV DV LQ 7KH\ WKH GRJ FDQGLHV WKXV UHQGHULQJ WKH HQWLUH XQLW DV WKH LQGLUHFW REMHFW Ef DQ $ 5HDGLQJ ZLWK WKH LQVHUWLRQ RI WKH DUWLFOH EHIRUH WKH ODVW QRPLQDO DV LQ 7KH\ WKH FDQGLHV WKXV UHQGHULQJ D VLQJOH ZRUG DV WKH LQGLUHFW REMHFW DQG Ff WZR RWKHU UDQn GRPO\ VHOHFWHG SLFWXUHV IURP RWKHU WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ERUH QR UHn VHPEODQFH WR WKH OH[LFDO LWHPV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH VHQWHQFH WR EH HYDOXDWHG 6XEMHFWV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG XQDPELJXRXV DQG DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH\ IHG KHU GRJ FDQGLHV LV DQ H[DPSOH RI RQH RI WKH DPELJXRXV VHQn WHQFHV 7KH WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG ERWK RUDOO\ DQG JUDSKLFDOO\ DV ZHOO DV D VLPXOWDQHRXV SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH VOLGH SLFWXUHV 7KH VXEn MHFW SRLQWHG WR WKH SLFWXUH QXPEHU ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQGHG WR WKH VHQWHQFH /H[LFDO HUURUV WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI XQUHODWHG SLFWXUHV WR VHQWHQFHV ZHUH SUDFWLFDOO\ QRQH[LVWHQW +RZHYHU WKH DYHUDJH \HDU ROG KDUG RIKHDULQJ VWXGHQW FRUUHFWO\ FRPSUHKHQGHG RQO\ b RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH FRPSDUDEOH WR WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI D KHDUn LQJ \HDU ROG %\ WKH DJH RI KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ FRUUHFWO\ FRPSUHKHQGHG b RI WKHVH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH DXWKRUV QRWHG WKDW IRU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKHUH ZDV D SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH % 5HDGLQJV E\ ERWK WKH KHDULQJ DQG KDUGRIKHDULQJ JURXSV 7KLV SUHIHUHQFH LQFUHDVHG ZLWK DJH EXW ZDV QRW SUHVHQW LQ FROn OHJH VXEMHFWV 7KLV GLVFRYHU\ ZDV LQWHUSUHWHG WR UHSUHVHQW D FKDQJLQJ ELDV WRZDUG RQH RU PRUH GHYHORSLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV )RU WKH PRVW SDUW WKLV ELDV ZRXOG EH QRQLQJXLVWLF LQ WKDW LW ZRXOG IDYRU WKH PRUH SUREDEOH RU PRVW OLNHO\ PHDQLQJ RI D VHQWHQFH

PAGE 44

6FKROHV &RKHQDQG %UXPILHOG LQ SUHVVf DGPLQLVWHUHG D VLPLODU WDVN WR GHDI VWXGHQWV LQ JUDGHV LQ D UHVLGHQWLDO VFKRRO IRU WKH GHDI 7KH VLPLODULW\ RI WKH GHDIIV SHUIRUPDQFH WR WKDW RI WKH SXEOLF VFKRRO KDUGRIKHDULQJ VWXGHQWV LV TXLWH UHPDUNDEOH 7KH GHDI FRPSUHKHQGHG b RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )RU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKHUH ZDV DJDLQ D SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH % 5HDGLQJ IRUP 7KLV PLJKW VXJJHVW WKDW WKH GHDI KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG KHDULQJ VKDUHG D FRPSUHKHQVLRQDO VWUDWHJ\ ELDV 4XLJOH\ DQG 3RZHU f EHJDQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D 7HVW RI 6\QWDFn WLF $ELOLWLHV 76$f DV SDUW RI D WRWDO UHVHDUFK SURJUDP WR HYDOXDWH FRPn SUHKHQVLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ IRU WKH IROORZLQJ DUHDV Df GHWHUPLQHUV Ef QHJDWLRQ Ff TXHVWLRQ IRUPDWLRQ Gf SURQRPLQDOL]DWLRQ Hf UHIOH[LYL]D WLRQ If WKH YHUE V\VWHP Jf FRQMXQFWLRQ Kf FRPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG Lf UHODWLYL]DWLRQ 6XEWHVWV IRU QRPLQDOL]DWLRQ DQG VHYHUDO DVSHFWV RI FRPn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t :LOEXU S f

PAGE 45

7KH JLUO ZKR WKH JLUO IRXQG WKH EDOO SOD\HG LQ WKH SDUN &KHFN 21( ER[ 7KH VHQWHQFH LV 5LJKW *R WR :URQJ &KDQJH WKH VHQWHQFH WR PDNH LW 5,*+7 :ULWH WKH ULJKW VHQWHQFH KHUH 4XLJOH\ 6PLWK t :LOEXU S f 8WLOL]LQJ D VXEWHVW RI WKH 76$ 4XLJOH\ :LOEXU DQG 0RQWDQHOOL f LQYHVWLJDWHG TXHVWLRQ IRUPDWLRQ E\ WKH GHDI 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG LQFUHDVLQJ LPSURYHPHQW IRU WKH GHDI ZLWK DJH +RZHYHU HYHQ WKH \RXQJHVW KHDULQJ VXEMHFW LQ WKH WKLUG JUDGH FRQVLVWHQWO\ REWDLQHG KLJKHU VFRUHV WKDQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH ROGHU GHDI VXEMHFWV $ UHVSRQVH KLHUDUFK\ GLG DSSHDU IRU ERWK JURXSV ZLWK WKH EHVW FRPSUHKHQVLRQ IRU \HVQR TXHVWLRQV IROORZHG E\ :K TXHVWLRQV 7DJ TXHVWLRQV SURYHG WR EH WKH PRVW GLIILn FXOW 4XLJOH\ 6PLWK DQG :LOEXU f DJDLQ HPSOR\HG VXEWHVWV RI WKH 76$ WR VWXG\ UHODWLYL]HG VHQWHQFHV LQ WKH GHDI 7KH FODXVHV ZHUH FODVVLn ILHG DFFRUGLQJ WR Df SODFHPHQW >ILQDO )f RU PHGLDO 0f@ DQG Ef IXQFn WLRQ RI WKH UHODWLYH SURQRXQ VXEMHFW RU REMHFW ZLWK RU ZLWKRXW D SURn QRXQf 5HVXOWV RI WKH SURFHVVLQJ WHVW DJDLQ GHPRQVWUDWHG D PDUNHG VXSHn ULRULW\ E\ WKH \HDU ROG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV b FRUUHFWf ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH \HDU ROG GHDI VXEMHFWV b FRUUHFWf )RU ERWK JURXSV D KLHUDUFK\ RI GLIILFXOW\ H[LVWHG ZLWK WKH HDVLHVW SURQRXQ IRU ERWK JURXSV GHSHQGHQW RQ LWV SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH HPEHGGHG FODXVH %HJLQQLQJ ZLWK WKH PRVW GLIILFXOW WKH IROORZLQJ RUGHU ZDV REVHUYHG Df REMHFWSURQRXQ FODXVH 0 SRVLWLRQ Ef VXEMHFWSURQRXQ FODXVH 0 SRVLWLRQ Ff VXEMHFW SURQRXQ FODXVH ) SRVLWLRQ DQG Gf REMHFWSURQRXQ FODXVH ) SRVLWLRQ

PAGE 46

7KH GHDI VKRZHG PRUH LPSURYHPHQW ZLWK DJH IRU WKH ILQDO SRVLWLRQ ZLWK b FRUUHFW DW DJH DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK RQO\ b FRUUHFW DW DJH +RZn HYHU LQFUHDVHG SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK DJH ZDV QRW ZLWQHVVHG IRU WKH PHGLDO SRVLWLRQ ZKLFK UHYHDOHG b FRUUHFW DW DJH 7KLV ODWWHU VFRUH LV VLPLODU WR WKH \HDU ROG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV UHVSRQVHV RI b FRUUHFW IRU WKH PHGLDO SRVLWLRQ :KHQ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK HPEHGGHG VHQWHQFHV WKH GHDI IUHTXHQWO\ LQDSn SURSULDWHO\ GHOHWHG WKH QRXQ SKUDVH LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU 7KH GRJ FKDVHG WKH JLUO KDG RQ D UHG GUHVV 7KH GHDI VKRZHG SDUWLFXODU GLIn ILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH SRVVHVVLYH 2OGHU JURXSV GLG DFFHSW WKH SURSHU IRUP RI SRVVHVVLRQ ZKRVH LQ D UHODWLYH FODXVH DQG WKH\ DOVR UHFRJQL]HG DV LQFRUUHFW VHQWHQFHV ZKHUH WKH SRVVHVVLYH ZDV UHTXLUHG EXW ZDV QRW SUHVHQW +RZHYHU WKH\ ZHUH DOVR XQDEOH WR UHFRJQL]H DV LQFRUUHFW VHQn WHQFHV ZLWK WKH SRVVHVVLYH IRUP QRXQ SKUDVH ZKHUH ZKRVH ZDV UHTXLUHG VXFK DV KHO'HG WKH ER\nV PRWKHU ZDV VLFN $ VWXG\ E\ 'DYLV DQG %ODVGHOO f UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH KDUGRI KHDULQJ DOVR KDG GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK UHODWLYH FODXVHV 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV WR DVFHUWDLQ FHUWDLQ SHUFHSWXDO VWUDWHJLHV RI KHDULQJ DQG KDUGRIKHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ DJHG \HDUV 6HQWHQFH VWLPXOL RI WKH IROORZLQJ IRUP ZHUH UHDG WR WKH FKLOGUHQ 7KH PDQ ZKR FKDVHG WKH VKHHS FXW WKH JUDVV 1L 9, 1 9 1 7KH FKLOGUHQ SRLQWHG WR WKH DSSURSULDWH SLFWXUH IURP DPRQJ D FKRLFH RI IRXU ZKLFK ZHUH GHVLJQHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV IRU WKH IROORZLQJ IRXU SRVVLEOH SHUFHSWXDO VWUDWHJLHV 1 9 1 7KH PDQ FXW WKH JUDVVf 7KLV LQYROYHG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI DW OHDVW DQG SUREDEO\ ERWK VHQWHQFHV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH PDLQ VHQWHQFH

PAGE 47

1, 9, 1 7KH PDQ FKDVHG WKH VKHHSf 7KLV LQYROYHG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI RQO\ XQGHUO\LQJ VWUDWHJ\f§692 1 9 1 7KH VKHHS DWH WKH JUDVVf 7KLV UHVSRQVH LQGLFDWHG D IDLOXUH WR FRPSUHKHQG HLWKHU RI WKH XQGHUO\LQJ VHQWHQFHV 1 9, 1 7KH VKHHS FKDVHG WKH PDQf 7KLV UHVSRQVH UHIOHFWHG D IDLOXUH WR FRPSUHKHQG HLWKHU RI WKH EDVH VHQWHQFHV DQG FRXOG KDYH UHVXOWHG IURP WKH XVH RI OH[LFDO LWHPV DV D EDVLV IRU FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ S f 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG D TXDQWDWLYH DQG TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH VFRUHV RI WKH WZR JURXSV $OWKRXJK ERWK JURXSV SODFHG PRUH HPSKDVLV RQ PDNLQJ WKH ILUVW QRXQ WKH VXEMHFW WKLV ZDV PRUH RIWHQ WUXH IRU WKH KHDULQJ JURXS bf WKDQ IRU WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ JURXS bf $PRQJ WKH ODWWHU JURXS WKHUH ZDV DOVR D PDUNHG WHQGHQF\ WR XVH WKH FRQIXVHG VWUDWHJ\ 1 9 1f RI WDNLQJ WKH REMHFW RI WKH UHODWLYH FODXVH DQG PDNLQJ LW WKH VXEMHFW DQG XVLQJ WKH YHUE DQG QRXQ LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZLQJ LW DV WKH PDLQ YHUE DQG REMHFW 7KLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH SHUVLVWHG LQ VSLWH RI WKH IDFW WKDW LW QHFHVVLWDWHG WKH DFFHSWDQFH RI D YHUE WKDW GLG QRW DSSHDU LQ WKH VWLPXOXV VHQWHQFH 7KLV DFFHSWDQFH RI D WRWDOO\ QHZ YHUE LV LPSRUWDQW LQ WKDW LW LQn GLFDWHG DQ RYHUZKHOPLQJ WHQGHQF\ RI WKH KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG WRZDUG WKLV W\SH RI VWUDWHJ\ ,Q WKH 4XLJOH\ 6PLWK DQG :LOEXU f H[SHULPHQW WKH UHTXLUHG UHVSRQVHV ZHUH \HVQR WR VHYHUDO ZULWWHQ VHQWHQFHV WR GHWHUPLQH WKH FRUUHFW SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH VWLPXOXV VHQWHQFH 7KH GHDI PLJKW HDVLO\ LQWHUSUHW LQ KLV VHQWHQFHV WKH 1 RI WKH HPEHGGHG FODXVH DV WKH ffORJLFDO VXEMHFW RI 9 7KH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFH SURYLGHV DQ H[DPSOH IURP RQH RI 4XLJOH\fV VWLPXOXV VHQWHQFHV DQG D SRVVLEOH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH GHDI 7KH JLUO ZKR KLW WKH ER\ ZHQW KRPH 1, 9, 1 9 1

PAGE 48

+RZHYHU WKH RYHUZKHOPLQJ SUHIHUHQFH IRU DQ 1 9 1 VWUDWHJ\ LV QRW DV REYLRXV LQ WKH DERYH H[DPSOH EHFDXVH XQOLNH WKH 'DYLV DQG %ODVGHOO VWXG\ WKHUH LV QR QHHG WR DFFHSW D QHZ YHUE 7KH ER\ ZHQW KRPH LV PRUH OLNHO\ WR RFFXU WKDQ 7KH VKHHS FXW WKH JUDVV :LOEXU 4XLJOH\ DQG 0RQWDQHOOL f DGPLQLVWHUHG DSSURSULDWH VXEWHVWV RI WKH 76$ WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH GHDInV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ FRQMRLQHG VHQWHQFHV 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW SURGXFWLRQ RI FRQMRLQHG VHQWHQFHV ZDV PRUH GLIILFXOW WKDQ MXGJPHQWV RI JUDPPDWLFDOQHVV )RU WKH GHDI VXEMHFWV FRQMRLQHG VXEMHFWV ZHUH HDVLHVW IROORZHG E\ FRQMRLQHG REMHFWV DQG FRQMRLQHG YHUE SKUDVHV 7KH JHQHUDO SDWWHUQ RI GHYHORSPHQW DJDLQ VHHPHG WR VKDGRZ WKDW RI WKH KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV +RZHYHU VRPH V\QWDFWLF GHYLDWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH SHFXOLDU WR WKH GHDI DQG UHVLVWDQW WR LPn SURYHPHQW ZLWK DJH ,W DSSHDUHG WKDW WKH GHDI KDG QRW PDVWHUHG D UXOH RI FRQMXQFWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV PXVW VHUYH WKH VDPH IXQFWLRQ ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ WZR VHQWHQFHV 7KH ER\ NLFNHG WKH FDW DQG 7KH FDW UDQ DZD\ LW VHHPHG WR PDQ\ RI WKH GHDI WKDW LW ZDV WKH ER\ ZKR UDQ DZD\ 7R DVFHUWDLQ WKH GHDInV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ YHUE LQIOHFWLRQV DQG DX[LOn LDULHV 4XLJOH\ 0RQWDQHOOL DQG :LOEXU f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

PAGE 49

WKDQ WKH \HDU ROG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV $ KLHUDUFK\ RI GLIILFXOW\ IRU WHQVH FRXOG EH REVHUYHG ZKLFK IURP OHDVW WR PRVW GLIILFXOW ZDV VLPSOH SDVW IXWXUH SUHVHQW SURJUHVVLYH SHUIHFWLYH DQG SDVVLYH 7KHVH UHn VXOWV FRQFXUUHG ZLWK WKRVH ZKLFK :LOFR[ DQG 7RELQ f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f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n VHDUFK XWLOL]LQJ PRUH GLIILFXOW WDVNV ZLWK ROGHU SRSXODWLRQV LV LQGLFDWHG

PAGE 50

7KHUH ZDV D WHQGHQF\ IRU KHDULQJ KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI WR SUHIHU WKH VDPH SUREOHP VROYLQJ VWUDWHJLHV Df 2Q D SDLUHG ZRUG WHVW DOO WKUHH JURXSV SUHIHUUHG DVVRn FLDWLRQ IROORZHG E\ JUDSKHPLFDOO\ VLPLODU DQG UK\PLQJ SDLUV Ef )RU D VHQWHQFH UHSHWLWLRQ WDVN XQGHU WKUHH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG KHDULQJ KDG WKH PRVW GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH UHFDOO WDVN Ff $ WHQGHQF\ ZLWK DJH IRU DQ LQFUHDVHG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI % 5HDGLQJV $UW 1 1f IRU DPELJXRXV GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFW VHQn WHQFHV ZDV REVHUYHG DPRQJ WKH KHDULQJ KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI $OWKRXJK HYHQ WKH ROGHVW GHDI VXEMHFWV RIWHQ VFRUHG ORZHU WKDQ WKH \RXQJHVW KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV WKH GHDI DSSHDUHG WR IROORZ WKH VDPH SDWn WHUQ RI DFTXLVLWLRQ DV WKH KHDULQJ LQ WKDW WKH GHDI GLG DFTXLUH DOWKRXJK LQ PDQ\ FDVHV DIWHU D GHOD\ RI VHYHUDO \HDUV VRPH RI WKH HDUOLHVW DSn SHDULQJ V\QWDFWLFDO IRUPV Df SUHVHQW DQG SDVW WHQVH Ef SOXUDOL]DWLRQ Ff \HVQR TXHVWLRQV Gf UHODWLYL]HG FODXVHV LQ WKH ILQDO SRVLWLRQ 2WKHU GDWD LQGLFDWHG WKDW IRU VRPH VWUXFWXUHV WKH GHDI VKRZHG PRUH WKDQ D JURVV GHOD\ EXW UDWKHU D FKDQFH SHUIRUPDQFH ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG QR YDOLG NQRZOHGJH RI WKH SDUWLFXODU VWUXFWXUH XQGHU VFUXWLQ\ Df 3DVVLYHV ZHUH XVXDOO\ DFTXLUHG E\ KHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ E\ DJHV RU ZKHUHDV WKH ROGHU GHDI ZHUH VWLOO SURFHVVLQJ DOO VHQWHQFHV DV 69 8VDJH RI WKH PDUNHU E\ ZDV WKHLU RQO\ LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKH SDVVLYH 7KLV VWUDWHJ\ ZDV REVHUYHG WR EH VLPLODU WR WKDW RI D \HDU

PAGE 51

ROG KHDULQJ FKLOG (YHQ E\ DJH WKH GHDI VWXGHQW SHUIRUPHG FRUUHFWO\ RQ b IRU QRQUHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV b IRU UHYHUVDEOH SDVVLYHV DQG b IRU DJHQW GHOHWHG SDVVLYHV Ef ,QGLUHFW DQG GLUHFW REMHFW GLVWLQFWLRQV ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ FRUUHFWO\ FRPSUHKHQGHG WKURXJK WKH XVH RI WKH PDUNHU WR E\ KHDULQJ KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ %\ WKH DJH RI WKH KHDULQJ FKLOn GUHQ KDG DFTXLUHG DGGLWLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV DQG FRXOG PDNH WKH REMHFW GLVWLQFn WLRQV ZLWK b DFFXUDF\ +RZHYHU KDUGRIKHDULQJ VXEMHFWV RI \HDUV RI DJH FRPSUHKHQGHG WKHVH GLVWLQFWLRQV ZLWK RQO\ b DFFXUDF\ 'HDI FKLOGUHQ RI \HDUV ZHUH DEOH WR FRPSUHKHQG RQO\ b F}I WKHVH VWUXFn WXUHV Ff 6HQWHQFH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ IRU FHUWDLQ TXHVWLRQ IRUPDWLRQV E\ \HDU ROG GHDI VXEMHFWV UHYHDOHG D FRUUHFW SHUIRUPDQFH RI b IRU :K TXHVWLRQV DQG b IRU WDJ TXHVWLRQV Gf )RU PHGLDO HPEHGGHG UHODWLYL]HG FODXVHV FKH \HDU ROG GHDI VFRUHG b FRUUHFW ZKLFK LV FRPSDUDEOH WR b FRUUHFW IRU D KHDULQJ VWXGHQW DW DJH 'HYLDQW VWUDWHJLHV ZHUH REVHUYHG LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFHV RI WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI LQ WKHLU Df FRQIXVLRQ RI WKH YHUE EH DQG KDYH Ef LQDELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H WKH QHHG IRU WKH SRVVHVVLYH QRXQ SKUDVH ZKRVH Ff WHQGHQF\ WR WDNH WKH REMHFW RI WKH HPEHGGHG UHODWLYH FODXVH PDNH LW WKH VXEMHFW DQG XVH WKH LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZLQJ YHUE DQG QRXQ DV WKH PDLQ YHUE DQG REMHFW Gf LJQRUDQFH RI WKH FRQMXQFWLRQ UXOH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKH VHQWHQFHV WR EH FRQMRLQHG PXVW VHUYH WKH VDPH IXQFWLRQ

PAGE 52

3UHYLRXV V\QWDFWLF VWXGLHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG LQ HLWKHU WKH JUDSKLF RU RUDO PHGLXP ZKLFK UHTXLUHG HLWKHU JUDSKLF RUDO RU SRLQWLQJ UHVSRQVH 7KHUH LV D SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW SRRU SHUIRUPDQFH UHVXOWHG PRUH IURP WKH GHDI VXEMHFWfV GLIILFXOW\ LQ H[SUHVVLQJ KLPVHOI LQ WKH UHTXLUHG WHVW IRUPDW UDWKHU WKDQ KLV ODFN RI (QJOLVK V\QWD[ 7ZHQH\ HW DO f IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VHPDQWLF FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ EHWZHHQ GHDI DQG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV ZKHQ WKH VWLPXOL ZHUH VLJQHG WR WKH GHDI ,I WKH VDPH WHVW ZHUH JLYHQ XQGHU WZR VHSDUDWH FRQGLWLRQVf§RQH XWLOL]LQJ WUDGLWLRQDO JUDSKLF VWLPXOL DQG UHVSRQVHV DQG WKH RWKHU FRQGLn WLRQ HPSOR\LQJ D IRUPDW PRUH LQGLJHQRXV IRU WKH GHDI VLJQLQJ DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJf IRU VWLPXOL SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG VXEMHFW UHVSRQVHV VFRUHV ZRXOG Df DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV DV WR WKH WUXH OLQJXLVWLF DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI IRU WKHVH LWHPV Ef VHUYH DV D SRVVLEOH GHVLJQ IRU IXWXUH OLQJXLVWLF LQYHVWLn JDWLRQV ZLWK WKLV SRSXODWLRQ 7KH VWXGLHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW NQRZOHGJH RI V\QWDFWLFDO VWUXFWXUHV LQ WKH GHDI FRXOG EH FODVVLILHG DV WR GHOD\ LQ DFTXLVLWLRQ XVDJH RI LQn DSSURSULDWH RU GHYLDQW VWUDWHJLHV DQG FRPSOHWH DEVHQFH RI FHUWDLQ VWUXFn WXUHV f )XUWKHU UHVHDUFK ZLWK GLIIHUHQW DJH JURXSV RQ ODQJXDJH VWUXFWXUHV LV QHHGHG WR KHOS DVFHUWDLQ Df ZKLFK RI DQ\ RU DOO RI WKH DERYH FRQGLWLRQV LV DSSOLFDEOH WR VSHFLILF VWUXFWXUHV Ef EDFNJURXQG LQIRUPDWLRQ VR WKDW VRPH HGXFDWLRQDO SURFHVV RI UHPHGLDWLRQ FRXOG WKHQ EH FRPPHQFHG QRW RQO\ IRU WKH GHDI EXW IRU WKH KDUGRIKHDULQJ DV ZHOO

PAGE 53

0RUSKRORJLFDO $VVHVVPHQW ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI LV H[DPLQHG DJDLQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH OLQJXLVWLF DSSURDFK EXW PRUSKRORJ\ UDWKHU WKDQ V\QWD[ LV WKH WKHPH RI WKLV VHFWLRQ 7KH VDPH TXHVWLRQV SRVHG LQ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ IRU VHFWLRQ WKUHH DUH DOVR UHOHYDQW IRU WKLV VHFWLRQ ([DFWO\ ZKHQ DQG KRZ GRHV XVDJH RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV HPSOR\HG E\ WKH KHDULQJ FKLOG RFn FXU LQ WKH GHDI" &DQ PRUSKRORJLFDO SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH GHDI EH HQKDQFHG WKURXJK D SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH IRUPDW PRUH LQGLJHQRXV WR WKH GHDI DV LQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQGRU VLJQLQJ" &DQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKHVH VSHFLILF PRUSKRORJLFDO VWUXFWXUHV SUHGLFW JHQHUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV LQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH $0(6/$1 LV XVHG" 7KLV VHFWLRQ LQFOXGHV WKH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH %HUNR 7HVW RI 0RUSKRORJ\ %70f DQG LWV XVDJH ZLWK YDULRXV SRSXn ODWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WKH GHDI 5DWLRQDOH IRU WKH 8VH RI 1RQVHQVH 6\OODEOHV ,Q -HDQ %HUNR GHYHORSHG D FODVVLF VWXG\ WR DVVHVV FKLOGUHQV NQRZOHGJH RI (QJOLVK PRUSKRORJ\ ,Q RUGHU WR LQVXUH FRUUHFW LQWHUQDOL]Dn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

PAGE 54

/LVWV RI WKH PRVW FRPPRQO\ XVHG YRFDEXODU\ RI ILUVW JUDGH FKLOGUHQV FRQYHUVDWLRQV FRPSRVLWLRQV DQG OHWWHUV ZHUH VWXGLHG 7KHVH OLVWV LQn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f 7KH VSRNHQ DOORPRUSKV RI WKH OHWWHU V V ] ]f HYHQ WKRXJK V\QWDFWLFDOO\ PD\ H[SUHVV GLIIHUHQW VWUXFWXUHV DUH SKRQRORJLFDOO\ FRQGLWLRQHG DQG LGHQWLFDO ZLWK RQH DQRWKHU 6LPLODUO\ JUDSKLF LQIOHFWLRQ RI WKH UHJXODU SDVW WHQVH LV HG KRZHYHU WKH SURGXFWLYH DOORPRUSKV W G AGf DUH DOVR SKRQRORJLFDOO\ FRQGLWLRQHG $Q H[DPSOH IRU WKH SDVW WHQVH ZRXOG EH f§W DIWHU VWHPV WKDW WHUPLQDWH LQ YRLFHOHVV VRXQGV DV LQ S N WM I V f§G DIWHU VWHPV WKDW WHUPLQDWH LQ YRLFHG VRXQGV DV LQ E b Y t P Q M U O rG DIWHU VWHPV WKDW WHUPLQDWH LQ W G 7KH SURJUHVVLYH LQJ DQG WKH DGMHFWLYHV 0HU0 DQG HVW DUH LQn YDULDEOH ,W VKRXOG DOVR EH QRWHG WKDW WKH SOXUDO SRVVHVVLYH KDV DQ f§ DOORPRUSK 7KHUH LV QR SKRQRORJLFDO GLIIHUHQFH LQ VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO SRVVHVVLRQ 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH LV LQGLFDWHG JUDSKLFDOO\ KRZHYHU $ E\ SODFHPHQW RI WKH DSRVWURSKH DV LQ ER\nV DQG ER\V

PAGE 55

$OVR QRWHG LQ WKH ILUVW JUDGHUVn YRFDEXODU\ DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ WHVWHG E\ %HUNR ZHUH ZRUGV FRQVLVWLQJ RI D IUHH PRUSKHPH DQG D GHULYDWLRQDO VXIIL[ DV LQ WHDFKHU RU RI WZR IUHH PRUSKHPHV DV LQ EODFNERDUG 6KH IHOW WKDW WKHUH ZHUH HQRXJK H[DPSOHV WR ZDUUDQW WHVWLQJ WKH GLPLQXWLYH DIIHFWLRQDWH\ WKH DGMHFWLYDO\ DQG WKH DJHQWLYHHU 7R DVVHVV WKH FKLOGnV XVH RI YDULRXV PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV XQGHU GLIIHULQJ SKRQRORJLFDO FRQGLWLRQV QRQVHQVH ZRUGV ZHUH PDGH XS ZKLFK IROn ORZHG SKRQRORJLFDO UXOH XVDJH LQ (QJOLVK 6HYHUDO UHDO (QJOLVK ZRUGV ZHUH DOVR LQFOXGHG LQ WKH WHVW (DFK WHVW SODWH LQFOXGHG QRQVHQVH SLFWXUHV DQG D WH[W ZKLFK RPLWWHG WKH GHVLUHG IRUP )LJXUH LOOXVWUDWHV DQ H[DPSOH RI D WHVW IRU WKH SOXUDO DOORPRUSK ] $ SODWH VLPLODU WR WKH IROORZLQJ ZRXOG EH XVHG 7KLV LV D ZXJ 1RZ WKHUH LV DQRWKHU RQH 7KHUH DUH WZR RI WKHP 7KHUH DUH WZR 7KH WHVW ZDV DOVR JLYHQ WR QDWLYH DGXOW VSHDNHUV RI (QJOLVK 7KHLU UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK GLG YDU\ ZHUH WKH FULWHULRQ XVHG LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH GHULYDWLRQDO DQG FRPSRXQG ZRUGV 7KH WHVW ZDV JLYHQ WR SUHVFKRRO DQG ILUVW JUDGH FKLOGUHQ &RQn VLVWHQF\ UHJXODULW\ DQG VLPSOLFLW\ ZHUH WKUHH PDLQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV 1HZ LWHPV ZHUH QRW WUHDWHG LQ DQ LGLRV\QFUDWLF SDWWHUQ %HVW SHUIRUPDQFHV ZHUH RQ WKRVH IRUPV WKDW DUH WKH PRVW IUHn TXHQWO\ XVHG DQGRU KDYH WKH IHZHVW YDULDQWV r

PAGE 56

7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI %HUNRnV ZRUN LQ OLQJXLVWLF LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LV HYLn GHQW E\ WKH IDFW WKDW RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH DGDSWHG DQGRU PRGLILHG WKH EDVLF WHVW DQG XVHG WKLV LQVWUXPHQW LQ PRUSKRORJLFDO VWXGLHV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV 7KH EDVLF YDOLGLW\ RI QRQVHQVH ZRUGV DV PHDVXUHn PHQWV RI PRUSKRORJLFDO VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ YDOLGDWHG E\ PDQ\ VWXGLHV $QLVIHOG DQG 7XFNHU f VWXGLHG WKH SURGXFWLYH DQG UHFHSWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ SOXUDOL]DWLRQ UXOHV E\ \HDU ROG $PHULFDQ FKLOGUHQ $ JHQHUDO KLHUDUFK\ RI GLIILFXOW\ HPHUJHG ZLWK WKH HDVLHVW DOORSKRQH EHLQJ ] IROORZHG E\ V DQG ILQDOO\ Accf] ,YLPH\ f XVHG WKH %HUNR PHWKRG WR VWXG\ WKH IRUPXODWLRQ DQG XVH RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV LQ D ODUJH VDPSOH RI /RQGRQ VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI WR \HDUV +LV UHVXOWV ZHUH DOVR LQ EURDG DJUHHn PHQW ZLWK WKRVH RI %HUNR WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHVV KRZHYHU IRU KLV SRSXn ODWLRQ ZDV PXFK VORZHU 7KH *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH VXEWHVW RI WKH ,OOLQRLV 7HVW RI 3V\FKROLQ JXLVWLF $ELOLWLHV ,73$f .LUN 0F&DUWK\ t .LUN f ZDV PRGHOHG GLUHFWO\ DIWHU %HUNRnV WHVW EXW XVHG PHDQLQJIXO OH[LFDO LWHPV WR DVVHVV D FKLOGV SURGXFWLYH FRPSHWHQFH IRU PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV 7KLV SDUWLFXODU VXEWHVW RI WKH ,73$ LV UHJDUGHG E\ PDQ\ VSHHFK FOLQLFLDQV DV RQH RI WKH IHZ VXEWHVWV WKDW DFWXDOO\ PHDVXUHV ZKDW DOO RI WKH VXEWHVWV FODLP WR DSSUDLVHf§PDLQO\ WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI ODQJXDJH 7KHUH LV DQ H[FHOOHQW FRUn UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ %HUNRnV WHVW DQG WKH *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH VXEWHVW 3HWWLW DQG *LOOHVSLH f FRPSDUHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFHV RI FKLOGUHQ IURP \HDUV RI DJH RQ VHOHFWHG LWHPV IURP WKH %HUNR WHVW DQG FRUUHVSRQGLQJ OH[LFDO LWHPV IURP WKH *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH VXEWHVW RI WKH ,73$ 5HVXOWV FRQFXUUHG ZLWK WKRVH RI RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV LQ WKDW WKH FKLOGUHQ VFRUHG KLJKHU RQ WKH PHDQLQJIXO ,73$ LWHPV WKDQ RQ WKH %HUNR LWHPV DW HYHU\ DJH OHYHO

PAGE 57

%HUU\ DQG 7DOERWW %HUU\ f SXEOLVKHG D ODQJXDJH WHVW DGDSWHG IURP %HUNR ZKLFK XWLOL]HG QRQVHQVH SLFWXUHV DQG ZRUGV LQ D VHQWHQFH FRPn SOHWLRQ WDVN 7KLUW\HLJKW LWHPV ZHUH XVHG WR H[SORUH WKH FKLOG7V DELOLW\ WR PDNH XS DQG WR XVH UXOHV RI JUDPPDU DQG V\QWD[ $OO RI WKH PRUSKRORJLFDO LQIOHFWLRQV ZKLFK ZHUH DVVHVVHG LQ WKH %HUNR WHVW ZHUH DOVR LQFRUSRUDWHG LQ WKH %HUU\7DOERWW 7HVW %77f 7KH DXWKRUV VWDWHG WKDW WKHLU WHVW ZDV OLPLWHG WR WKH NQRZOHGJH RI OLQJXLVWLF PRUSKRORJ\ FRPPRQ WR FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ \HDUV RI DJH 7KH SODWHV DUH SUHVHQWHG WR WKH FKLOG VR WKDW KH PD\ VHH WKH SLFn WXUHV DQG LI KH LV DEOH WR IROORZ WKH VHQWHQFHV WKDW DUH UHDG WR KLP 1R DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR VHFXUH QRUPDWLYH VFRUHV IRU YDULRXV DJH OHYHOV %DVHG RQ SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXGLHV WKH DXWKRUV SUHGLFWHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUn IRUPDQFH OHYHOV ZLWK DJH VR WKDW ,Q JHQHUDO WKH DYHUDJH \HDU ROG FKLOG ZRXOG VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPSOHWH WKH VHQWHQFHV RQ 3ODWHV 9 WKH \HDU ROG ;,9 ZLWK RQH HUURUf WKH \HDU ROG ;; ZLWK RQH HUURUf DQG DOORZLQJ IRU RQH HUURU WKH DYHUDJH FKLOG RI HLJKW \HDUV VKRXOG EH DEOH WR VZHHS WKH VHULHV ;;; S f 9RJHO f IRXQG ERWK WKH %77 DQG WKH *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH VXEWHVW RI WKH ,73$ H[WUHPHO\ YDOXDEOH PHDVXUHV IRU LGHQWLI\LQJ FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH JRRG UHDGHUV IURP WKRVH ZKR ZHUH G\VOH[LF %RWK WHVWV ZHUH DGn PLQLVWHUHG DQG UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH G\VOH[LFV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIHULRU WR WKH JRRG UHDGHUV 7KH DXWKRU K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK HYHQ VLPSOH PRUSKRORJLFDO LQIOHFWLRQV FRXOG UHVXOW LQ LQHIILFLHQW XVH RI WKH VHPDQWLF DQG V\QWDFWLF FOXHV SURYLGHG E\ PRUSKRORJ\ LQ ZULWWHQ PDWHULDO 1HZILHOG DQG 6FKODQJHU f XWLOL]HG %HUNRfV QRQVHQVH ZRUGV DV ZHOO DV D OLVW RI UHDO ZRUGV WR FRPSDUH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI (QJOLVK PRUSKRORJ\ E\ QRUPDO DQG HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 58

7KH OHDUQLQJ SDFH ZDV VORZHU IRU WKH ODWWHU SRSXODWLRQ KRZHYHU WKH RUGHU RI DFTXLVLWLRQ ZDV WKH VDPH DV IRU WKH QRUPDO JURXS 'LIIHUn HQFHV IDYRULQJ FRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU UHDO RYHU QRQVHQVH LWHPV DSSUHDUHG IRU ERWK JURXSV 7KH GLVSDULW\ ZDV JUHDWHU IRU WKH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG JURXS 7KLV UHVXOW KHOSHG FRQILUP %HUNRnV VXSSRVLWLRQ WKDW WKHUH LV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D UXOH WR D IDPLOLDU LWHP DQG WKH JHQHUDOn L]HG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKLV UXOH WR XQIDPLOLDU LWHPV ,W DSSHDUHG WKDW DSSOLFDWLRQ RI LQIOHFWLRQDO HQGLQJV DSSHDUHG ILUVW LQ IDPLOLDU FRQWH[WV DQG WKHQ DIWHU VRPH WLPH ODSVH WKLV UXOH FRXOG EH H[WHQGHG WR XQIDPLOLDU LWHPV 'HYHU DQG *DUGQHU f DOVR VWXGLHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI QRUPDO DQG UHWDUGHG ER\V RQ %HUNRV WHVWV 7KHLU UHVXOWV VXSSRUWHG WKRVH RI 1HZILHOG DQG 6FKODQJHU f ,Q WKH DERYH VWXG\ LW ZDV REVHUYHG WKDW DOWKRXJK VRPH RI WKH FKLOn GUHQ IDLOHG WR VXSSO\ WKH FRUUHFW PRUSKHPH LQ WKH WHVW VLWXDWLRQ WKH\ GLG LQ IDFW XVH LW FRUUHFWO\ LQ FRQYHUVDWLRQDO VSHHFK ,Q 'HYHU SUHVHQWHG D UHYLVHG %HUNR WHVW DQG DOVR WZR VDPSOHV RI IUHH VSHHFK IURP HGXFDEOH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG ER\V 5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW DOWKRXJK OH[LFDO LWHPV ZHUH VOLJKWO\ EHWWHU SUHGLFWRUV WKDQ QRQVHQVH LWHPV ERWK VWLPXOL ZHUH SRRU LQGLFDWRUV RI FRUn UHFW PRUSKRORJLFDO XVDJH LQ VSRQWDQHRXV VSHHFK IRU WKLV SRSXODWLRQ 1R GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PRUSKRORJLFDO VWUXFWXUHV LQ WKH ODQJXDJH RI GLVn DGYDQWDJHG DQG DGYDQWDJHG FKLOGUHQ ZHUH IRXQG ZKHQ 6KULQHU DQG 0LQHU f DVVHVVHG WKH JURXSVn UHFHSWLYH DQG H[SUHVVLYH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D %HUNR W\SH QRQVHQVH V\OODEOH WHVW 7KH WHVW GLG PHDVXUH OLQJXLVWLF DELOLW\ DV ERWK JURXSV LPSURYHG LQ DSSOLFDWLRQ RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV WR XQIDPLOLDU VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK D FRUUHVSRQGLQJ LQFUHDVH LQ PHQWDO DJH

PAGE 59

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rV DGXOWV GLG YDU\ IRU WKH GHULYDWLRQDO DQG FRPSRXQG ZRUGV KRZHYHU RWKHU DXWKRUV KDYH IRXQG WKH DGXOW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKHVH LWHPV PXFK PRUH YDULDEOH WKDQ WKRVH REWDLQHG E\ %HUNR 'HYHU DQG *DUGQHU f FULWLFL]HG WKHLU YHUVLRQ RI %HUNRnV WHVW RQ WKLV SRLQW 7KH\ DFFHSWHG DQG VFRUHG DV FRUUHFW IRU WKH VWXGHQWV DQ\ RI WKHLU WHDFKHUVn UHVSRQVHV IRU WKRVH LWHPV WKDW RFFXUUHG ZLWK D IUHTXHQF\ RI RYHU b ,YLPH\ f DOVR IRXQG KLV DGXOW PRGHOV IDU IURP VWDEOH +H DWWULEXWHG WKLV IDFWRU WR WKH LQFUHDVH LQ OLQJXLVWLF VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ DV PHDVXUHG E\ SRVWVFKRRO HGXFDWLRQf VR WKDW JUHDWHU GHYLDQFH ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ PDQLSXODWLQJ WKH QRQVHQVH ZRUGV /DUVRQ 6XPPHUV DQG -DFTXRW f VSHFLILFDOO\ FULWLFL]HG WKH %77 RQ WKH DPELJXLW\ RI DGXOW UHVSRQVHV 1RQH RI KLV DGXOW PRGHOV DFKLHYHG D SHUIHFW VFRUH RQ WKLV WHVW DQG WKH PDMRULW\ PLVVHG EHWZHHQ VL[ DQG VHYHQ LWHPV 7KH IROORZLQJ IRXU LWHPV ZHUH PLVVHG E\ PRUH WKDQ KDOI RI WKH DGXOWV WKH GLPLQXWLYH RI QDG WKH GHULYHG ZRUG QDGKRXVH DQG WKH WZR GHULYHG DGMHFWLYHV WURSS\ DQG OLJJ\ 1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ WKHVH ZHUH DOVR WKH VDPH LWHPV PRVW RIWHQ PLVVHG E\ WKH FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH DJHV ZHUH DQG

PAGE 60

$ IXUWKHU FULWLFLVP ZDV ZKDW /DUVRQ HW DO f IHOW ZDV WKH KLJKO\ XQUHDOLVWLF SURMHFWHG SHUIRUPDQFH VFRUHV DFFRUGLQJ WR DJH ZKLFK %HUU\ DQG 7DOERWW KDG PDGH 5HIHU WR WKH VHFWLRQ RQ WKH %77 IRU WKH SURMHFWHG SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOVf 7KH VFRUHV RI WKHVH VXEMHFWV GLG VXSSRUW WKLV FRQWHQWLRQ +RZHYHU LI RQH ORRNHG DW WKH HUURUV PDGH E\ WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH FKLOGUHQ LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH RQHV SUHYLRXVO\ GHVFULEHG WKHVH DGGLWLRQDO HUURUV ZHUH RQ D IDLUO\ KLJK OHYHO IRU WKH %77 7KHVH HUURUV LQFOXGHG WKH SOXUDOV IRU WKH VWLPXOXV LWHPV OXW] DQG VSX] ZKLFK UHTXLUH WKH f] DOORPRUSK DQG WKH GHULYHG QRXQ IRU WKH VWLPXOXV LWHP ffELQH :KHQ WKH KLJKHU DGXOW PHDQ VFRUHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH FKLOGUHQ D PDWXUDWLRQDO HIIHFW ZDV VXJJHVWHG &RUUHODWLQJ DJDLQ ZLWK WKH UHVXOWV RI RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH FKLOGUHQrV UHVSRQVHV HYHQ ZKHQ LQFRUUHFW VKRZHG HYLGHQFH RI UHJXODULW\ DQG UXOH IRUPDWLRQ 'HVSLWH WKH FULWLFLVPV /DUVRQ HW DO f IHOW WKH %77 WR EH D YDOXDEOH WRRO LQ GLVFRYHULQJ WKH HYROXWLRQ RI D FKLOGIV PRUSKRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQW 0RUSKRORJLFDO 6WXGLHV RI WKH 'HDI 7KHUH KDV EHHQ RQO\ RQH ZLGHO\ UHSRUWHG VWXG\ RQ WKH XVH RI PRUn SKRORJLFDO DQG GHULYDWLRQDO UXOHV E\ WKH GHDI ,Q &RRSHU DVVHVVHG WKH NQRZOHGJH RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ WR DSSO\ LQIOHFWHG DQG GHULYDWLRQDO VXIn IL[HV RQ DQ LQVWUXPHQW PRGHOHG RQ WKH WHVW GHYLVHG E\ %HUNR 7KLV WHVW XWLOL]HG QRQVHQVH SLFWXUHV DQG ZRUGV WR HOLFLW WKH GHVLUHG PRUSKRORJLFDO IRUP ,Q &RRSHUnV f VWXG\ D SDSHU DQG SHQFLO WHVW ZDV GHYLVHG WR REWDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW UHFHSWLYH DQG SURGXFWLYH DELOLW\ 7KH GHDI VWXGHQWV UDQJHG LQ DJH IURP WR \HDUV DQG WKH KHDULQJ VWXGHQWV KDG DQ DJH UDQJH RI WR \HDUV

PAGE 61

5HFHSWLYH NQRZOHGJH ZDV DVFHUWDLQHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU $Q DQLPDO ZDV FDOOHG D PRJJ DQG EHORZ WKHUH ZHUH IRXU SLFWXUHV RQH RI WZR PRJJV RQH RI D VLQJOH PRJJ RQH RI D PRJJ ZLWK D GLIIHUHQW DQLPDO DQG RQH RI D GLIIHUHQW DQLPDO 7KH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DVNHG WR SXW DQ ; RQ PRJJV 7R GHWHUPLQH SURGXFWLYH NQRZOHGJH WKH FKLOG ZDV DVNHG WR PRGLI\ QRQVHQVH ZRUGV FXHG E\ D SLFWXUH 8QGHU WKH SLFWXUH ZDV D WH[W RI WKH IROORZLQJ W\SH 7KLV LV D PDQ ZKR NQRZV KRZ WR KLSS +H GLG LW \HVWHUn GD\ :KDW GLG KH GR \HVWHUGD\"
PAGE 62

3URGXFWLYH NQRZOHGJH RI GHULYDWLRQDO ZRUGV ZDV REWDLQHG E\ UHTXLUn LQJ WKH VXEMHFW WR FRPSOHWH D VWDWHPHQW IRU H[DPSOH -RKQfV GRJ KDV ZDJJV RQ LW :DJJV DUH DOO RYHU WKH GRJ ,W LV D Zf GRJ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKH PDUNHG VXSHULRULW\ RI HYHQ WKH \RXQJHVW VXEn MHFWV RYHU WKH DYHUDJH VFRUH RI WKH \HDU ROG GHDI VWXGHQWV 3DWWHUQV RI LWHP GLIILFXOW\ IRU WKH GHDI VWXGHQWV VKDGRZHG WKDW RI WKH KHDULQJ VWXGHQWV ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH IRU WKH WZR JURXSV EHLQJ FORVHVW RQ LQIOHFn WLRQDO LWHPV DQG IDUWKHVW DSDUW RQ GHULYDWLRQDO LWHPV +HDULQJ IHPDOHV SDVVHG HDFK LWHP FOHDUO\ DQG FRQVLVWHQWO\ ZLWK D FRUUHVSRQGLQJ LQFUHDVH LQ DJH 7KLV ZDV QRW WKH FDVH IRU WKH GHDI IHPDOHV ZKHUH WKH SHUFHQWDJH IRU SDVVLQJ HDFK LWHP LQFUHDVHG HUUDWLFDOO\ DQG LQFRQVLVWHQWO\ ZLWK FKURQRORJLFDO DJH 7KHUH ZDV JUHDWHU GLVFUHSDQF\ ZKHQ VFRUHV ZHUH FRPn SDUHG ZLWK FKURQRORJLFDO DJH UDWKHU WKDQ ZLWK PHQWDO DJH RU UHDGLQJ HTXLYDOHQW 7KHUH ZDV DQ LQFUHDVHG WHQGHQF\ IRU ERWK JURXSV WR XVH WKH LUUHJXODU SOXUDO ZLWK DJH 3OXUDO QRXQV DQG SDVW WHQVH ZHUH WKH HDVLHVW LWHPV 1H[W SURFHHGLQJ IURP OHDVW WR PRVW GLIILFXOW ZHUH f SURJUHVn VLYH f VXSHUODWLYH DGMHFWLYH f FRPSDUDWLYH DGMHFWLYH f WKLUG SHUVRQ VLQJXODU DQG f GHULYHG ZRUGV &RRSHUIV WHVW DV LQ VHYHUDO RI WKH V\QWDFWLF WHVWV UHYLHZHG LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ ZDV D JUDSKLF HYDOXDWLRQ DQG KH WKRXJKW KLV WHVW D SURPLVLQJ LQVWUXPHQW IRU DVVHVVLQJ FKLOGUHQV NQRZOHGJH RI FHUWDLQ ODQn JXDJH UXOHV KRZHYHU KH FDXWLRQHG WKDW DOWKRXJK ZULWWHQ DQG VSRNHQ (QJOLVK KDYH PDQ\ FRPPRQ IHDWXUHV WKHUH LV QRW D RQHWRRQH FRUUHVSRQn GHQFH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ PRGHV 6XPPDU\ RI 0RUSKRORJLFDO $VVHVVPHQW $ UHYLHZ RI PRUSKRORJLFDO DVVHVVPHQW KDV LQGLFDWHG WKH IROORZLQJ JHQHUDOL]DWLRQV

PAGE 63

1RQVHQVH WHVWV RI PRUSKRORJ\ DGDSWHG IURP %HUNRfV RULJLQDO WHVW f DUH YDOLG LQ PHDVXULQJ D FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR DSSO\ PRUSKRORJLn FDO UXOHV WR QHZ VWLPXOL &RQVLVWHQF\ UHJXODULW\ DQG VLPSOLFLW\ DUH WKUHH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKLFK DUH HYLGHQW LQ UHVSRQVHV HYHQ LI WKH UHVSRQVH LV LQFRUUHFW 7KHVH WHVWV RI PRUSKRORJ\ KDYH SURYHG XVHIXO LQ DVVHVVLQJ D FKLOGnV GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHO LQ PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOH DSSOLFDWLRQ DQG LQ GLIn IHUHQWLDWLQJ DPRQJ QRUPDO DQG RWKHU SRSXODWLRQ JURXSV VXFK DV WKH GHDI WKH G\VOH[LFV DQG WKH PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG &KLOGUHQ DOZD\V SHUIRUP EHWWHU RQ PRUSKRORJLFDO WHVWV ZKLFK HPSOR\ UHDO UDWKHU WKDQ QRQVHQVH LWHPV 7KH\ ILUVW GHPRQVWUDWH PRUn SKRORJLFDO XVDJH ZLWK WUXH ZRUGV DQG WKHQ DIWHU VRPH GHOD\ DUH DEOH WR H[WHQG WKLV UXOH WR XQIDPLOLDU QRQVHQVH ZRUGV 5DWH RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOH DFTXLVLWLRQ PD\ YDU\ EXW WKH JHQHUDO RUGHU RI DFTXLVLWLRQ LV SUHVHUYHG 3HUIRUPDQFH LV EHVW RQ WKH LQIOHFWLRQV PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ XVHG DQGRU RQ WKRVH KDYLQJ WKH IHZHVW YDULDQWV :LWK DGXOWV ZKR KDYH DFKLHYHG D FHUWDLQ GHJUHH RI OLQJXLVWLF VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ EHFDXVH RI WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO EDFNJURXQGV WKHUH LV D JUHDW YDULHW\ RI UHVSRQVHVf§HVSHFLDOO\ IRU GHULYHG FRPSRXQG ZRUGV GLPLQXWLYHV DQG GHULYHG DGMHFWLYHV 7KH %77 KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH D YDOLG WHVW RI PRUSKRORJ\ DQG WR FRUUHODWH ZLWK RWKHU YDOLG ODQJXDJH DVVHVVPHQW WHVWV *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH 6XEWHVW RI WKH ,73$f

PAGE 64

&RRSHUnV HYDOXDWLRQ f ZDV D SDSHU DQG SHQFLO WHVW +H KLPVHOI FDXWLRQHG DERXW DGRSWLQJ D RQHWRRQH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ JUDSKLF DQG VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH Df 7KHUHIRUH LQ D SRSXODWLRQ OLNH WKH GHDI ZKR XVH YLVXDO DQG JHVWXUDO VLJQDOV DV WKHLU SULPDU\ PHWKRG RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ D WHVW RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV SUHVHQWHG YLVXDOO\ VLJQ DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJf DQG UHTXLULQJ D YLVXDO UHVSRQVH ZRXOG JLYH PRUH YDOLG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH GHDInV NQRZOHGJH RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV VLQFH WKH SURFHGXUH ZRXOG EH LQ D PHGLXP LQGLJHQRXV WR WKHP Ef $Q DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH VDPH WHVW LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQDO JUDSKLF PDQQHU ZRXOG GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW ZKLFK PHGLXP SUHVHQWDWLRQ DIn IHFWV WKH GHDInV UHVSRQVHV DQG LI WKH SRRU PRUSKRORJLFDO SHUIRUPDQFHV FRXOG EH DQ DUWLIDFW RI D SDUWLFXODU WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH RU WUXH LJQRUDQFH E\ WKH GHDI IRU FHUWDLQ PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK ZHUH WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH YLVXDO ILQJHU VSHOOHG DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVKf YV WKH JUDSKLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI GHDI DGROHVn FHQWV RQ OLQJXLVWLF WDVNV XVLQJ WKH %77 DQG WR LQYHVWLJDWH LI D UHODn WLRQVKLS H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ WKHVH VFRUHV DQG MXGJPHQWV RI )& SURILFLHQF\ )& SURILFLHQF\ ZDV MXGJHG E\ SHUVRQV NQRZOHGJHDEOH LQ VLJQ ODQJXDJH DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ XWLOL]LQJ D SRLQW 4XDOLW\ 6FDOH DQG D VSHFLILF ,WHP $QDO\VLV 6DPSOH ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG WKH PDMRU DQG PLQRU LWHPV RI WKH VWRU\ 7KH VSHFLILF JRDOV RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZHUH 7R GHWHUPLQH LI D PHWKRG RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH ILQJHU VSHOOHG RU JUDSKLFf ZRXOG LQIOXHQFH WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH GHDI

PAGE 65

7R GHWHUPLQH LI D UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ %77 VFRUHV DQG WKH MXGJHG OHYHO RI B)& SURILFLHQF\ 7R GHWHUPLQH LI OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQGRU )& ZHUH GHSHQGHQW RQ DQ\ RI WKH IROORZLQJ YDULDEOHV Df HWLRORJ\ Ef G% ORVV LQ EHWWHU HDU Ff ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH Gf SHUVRQV DW KRPH ZKR FDQ ILQJHU VSHOO DQGRU VLJQ Hf DJH ZKHQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ ILUVW DFTXLUHG If QXPEHU RI \HDUV DW )ORULGD 6FKRRO IRU WKH 'HDI DQG %OLQG )6'%f Jf UHDGLQJ OHYHO Kf ,4 OHYHO Lf GDWH RI ELUWK Mf UDFH Nf VH[ Of RWKHU LPSDLUHG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV

PAGE 66

&+$37(5 ,,, 0(7+2' $1' '(6,*1 2) 7+( 678'< ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KLV FKDSWHU FRQWDLQV WKH SURFHGXUHV XVHG IRU VXEMHFW VHOHFWLRQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO WDVNV SHUIRUPHG E\ WKH VXEMHFWV UHOLDELOLW\ SURFHGXUHV DQG WKH LQVWUXPHQWV XWLOL]HG IRU DQDO\VLV 3URFHGXUHV 6XEMHFWV 7KLUW\ VWXGHQWV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG IURP DPRQJ WKRVH ZKR ZHUH DWWHQGLQJ WKH )ORULGD 6FKRRO IRU WKH 'HDI DQG %OLQG )6'%f ZKR PHW WKH IROORZLQJ FULWHULD D KHDULQJ ORVV RI G% RU JUHDWHU LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU DV WKH SULPDU\ GHILFLW GHDI IURP ELUWK RU SUHOLQJXDOO\ GHDIHQHG EHIRUH WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI VSHHFKf D SHUIRUPDQFH ,4 VFRUH RI RU KLJKHU D UHDGLQJ OHYHO HTXLYDOHQW WR JUDGH WKUHH RU KLJKHU D PRQROLQJXDO (QJOLVKf KRPH HQYLURQPHQW RI (QJOLVK VLJQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQGRU VRPH PL[WXUH RI DOO WKUHH DQ DJH UDQJH IURP D VFRUH RI DW OHDVW b FRUUHFW RQ D UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG WHVW RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DELOLW\

PAGE 67

&ULWHULD RQH WKURXJK VL[ ZHUH REWDLQHG IURP VFKRRO UHFRUGV $ SURILOH RI WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKLV VWXG\ LV LQ $SSHQGL[ $ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ $ELOLW\ 3RWHQWLDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH JLYHQ D UHVHDUFKHU GHYHORSHG WHVW RI SLFn WXUH QDPLQJ E\ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ LQ RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU DELOLW\ WR ILQJHU VSHOO ,I D VXEMHFW IDLOHG WKLV WDVN KH ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ DXWRn PDWLFDOO\ GLVTXDOLILHG IURP WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DQG DQRWKHU VWXGHQW SRVn VHVVLQJ WKH GHVLUHG FULWHULD ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG DQG JLYHQ WKH )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ 7HVW :RUGV UDQJHG LQ GLIILFXOW\ IURP WKH YHU\ HDV\ HYHU\GD\ RQHV ZKLFK ZRXOG EH IDPLOLDU WR D ILUVW JUDGHU WR LQFUHDVLQJO\ GLIILFXOW DQG OHVV HQFRXQWHUHG RQHV 7KH PRVW GLIILFXOW ZHUH QRQVHQVH SLFWXUHV ZKHUH WKH QDPHVf FRQVLVWHG RI OHWWHU FRQILJXUDn WLRQV XQFRPPRQ WR WKH (QJOLVK ODQJXDJH 1DWXUDOO\ IRU WKH QRQVHQVH SLFn WXUHV WKH VXEMHFW ZDV VKRZQ WKH ZULWWHQ QDPH 6HH $SSHQGL[ % IRU WKH WHVW LQVWUXFWLRQV SURFHGXUDO SURWRFRO DQG VFRULQJ PHWKRGV $ SDVVLQJ FULWHULRQ OHYHO RI b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

PAGE 68

WR PDNH DQ\ PHFKDQLFDO DGMXVWPHQWV RQ WKH LQVWUXPHQWV XWLOL]HG VXFK DV UHZLQGLQJ RI WKH YLGHR SUHVHQWDWLRQ WDSH RU FKDQJLQJ WKH WDSH XVHG LQ ILOPLQJ WKH VXEMHFWV %77 *UDSKLF (DFK VXEMHFW UHVSRQGHG WR TXHVWLRQV 7KH QRQVHQVH ZRUGV DQG VWLPXOL ZHUH SUHVHQWHG RQ SODWHV ZKLFK KDG EHHQ PDGH LQWR D ERRNOHW IRUP ,Q VRPH LQVWDQFHV WZR VWLPXOXV LWHPV DSSHDUHG RQ D VLQJOH SODWH ,QVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH SXEOLVKHG SURWRFRO RI WKH %HUU\ 7DOERWW /DQJXDJH 7HVWV &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI *UDPPDU %HUU\ f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n IHUHQW IURP WKRVH ZKLFK ZRXOG EH XVHG LQ WKH PDQXDO YLVXDOf SUHVHQWDn WLRQ 7KHUHIRUH WR DYRLG SRVVLEOH FRQIXVLRQ D ZULWWHQ OLVW RI WKHVH VLJQV ZDV SUHVHQWHG WR HDFK VXEMHFW EHIRUH WKH YLGHR YLHZLQJ 7KH VXEn MHFW SURYLGHG WKH H[DPLQHU ZLWK KLV VLJQ IRU D SDUWLFXODU ZRUG DQG ZDV JLYHQ WKH VLJQ KH ZRXOG VHH RQ WKH YLGHR WDSH %HIRUH WKH DFWXDO YLGHR WDSH SUHVHQWDWLRQ DGGLWLRQDO LQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ JUDSKLF DV ZHOO DV LQ VLJQHG (QJOLVK IRUP %HFDXVH RI WKH WUDQVLHQW QDWXUH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ LW ZDV LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH

PAGE 69

VXEMHFWV NQHZ WKDW WKH H[DFW FRUUHFW VSHOOLQJ RI WKH VWLPXOL ZRUG ZDV QRW LPSRUWDQW EXW WKDW VRPH ILQJHU VSHOOHG UHVSRQVH WR HDFK LWHP ZDV H[SHFWHG 7KH VWDQGDUG GLUHFWLRQV SURFHGXUHV VHQWHQFHV DQG QRQVHQVH VWLPXOL XWLOL]HG IRU WKH *UDSKLF %77 ZHUH SUHVHQWHG RQ D VSOLWVFUHHQ LQFK YLGHR PRQLWRU 6RQ\ &90 8f 2Q RQHKDOI RI WKH VFUHHQ ZDV D SLFn WXUH RI WKH QRQVHQVH VWLPXOL 7KLV SODWH UHPDLQHG FRQVWDQW ZKLOH RQ WKH RWKHU KDOI RI WKH VFUHHQ WKH H[DPLQHU XVHG VLJQHG (QJOLVK DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ WR FRPPXQLFDWH WKH VWDQGDUG JUDSKLF VWLPXOL RI WKH %77 7KH RQO\ SURFHGXUDO GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV ZDV WKDW LQ WKH ODWWHU WDVN WKH VXEMHFW KDG D VHFRQG LQWHUYDO WR ILQJHU VSHOO KLV UHVSRQVH 7KHUH ZHUH QR UHSHDWV RI VWLPXOXV LWHPV RQFH WKH WHVW KDG EHJXQ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH VHDWHG DERXW IHHW IURP WKH PRQLWRU $ PLFURn SKRQH ZDV SODFHG LQ IURQW RI WKH FKLOG WR UHFRUG DQ\ YRFDOL]DWLRQV $OO VWXGHQWV VDZ DQG LI FDSDEOH RI KHDUG WKH VDPH YLGHR WDSH ILOP RI WKH WHVW ZKLFK KDG EHHQ ILOPHG RQ D SRUWDEOH YLGHR FDPHUD 6RQ\ $9& f 9LGHR UHFRUGLQJV RI WKH ILQJHU VSHOOHG UHVSRQVHV RI DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH PDGH IRU ODWHU VFRULQJ 7KH VLJQV UHYLHZHG SULRU WR WKH ILOP SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG DGGLWLRQDO LQVWUXFWLRQV DUH IRXQG LQ $SSHQGL[ )& 7DVN 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH JLYHQ D VWRU\ )RUP $*f IURP WKH *UD\ 2UDO 5HDGLQJ 7HVW *257f ZKLFK KDG DQ DSSUR[LPDWH IRXUWK JUDGH OHYHO RI GLIn ILFXOW\ *UH\ f 7KH VWXGHQWV ZHUH WROG WR UHDG WKH VWRU\ WR WKHPn VHOYHV DQG ZKHQ WKH\ IHOW WKDW WKH\ ZHUH DGHTXDWHO\ SUHSDUHG WR UHWHOO

PAGE 70

WKH VWRU\ LQ DQ\ PDQQHU WKH\ ZLVKHG ,QVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ JUDSKLF RUDO DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK IRUP 9LGHR UHFRUGLQJV RI DOO VWRULHV ZHUH PDGH ,I WKH VWXGHQW LQTXLUHG DERXW D SDUWLFXODU YRFDEXODU\ ZRUG WKH H[DPLQHU H[SODLQHG LW 7KLV WDVN SODFHG QR WLPH OLPLWV RQ HLWKHU WKH UHDGLQJ RI WKH SDVVDJH LWVHOI RU RQ LWV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ E\ WKH VXEMHFW 6HH $SSHQGL[ IRU WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV JLYHQ DQG WKH SDUDJUDSK WDNHQ IURP WKH *257f 6FRULQJ &ULWHULRQ %77 *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO 7KLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH FRQFHSW FRQYH\HG E\ FHUn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n WZHHQ WKH FRPSDUDWLYH DQG VXSHUODWLYH EXW IDLOHG WR ILQJHU VSHOO RU ZULWH WKH UHTXLUHG HU RU QHVW LQIOHFWLRQV KLV UHVSRQVHV ZHUH VFRUHG b DV LQFRUUHFW 1R RQH ZDV SHQDOL]HG IRU PLVVSHOOLQJV RI WKH QRQVHQVH ZRUG VWHPV

PAGE 71

7KH H[SHULPHQWHU VFRUHG DOO *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 UHVSRQVHV ,Q RUGHU WR HVWDEOLVK DQ LQGH[ RI UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH UDWLQJV D KHDULQJ FROn OHJH VWXGHQW RI GHDI SDUHQWV ZKR ZDV IDPLOLDU ZLWK VLJQV DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DOVR VFRUHG *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 LWHPV +H ZDV SUHYLRXVO\ JLYHQ D VKRUW WUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQ VR WKDW KH ZRXOG EH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH VFRULQJ FULWHULRQ 7KHVH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU 7KH WHVWV VFRUHG E\ WKH VHFRQG UDWHU ZHUH FRPSRVLWHV RI UHVSRQVHV IURP DOO RI WKH VXEMHFWV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU UDQN RUGHUHG HDFK VXEMHFWV WHVW VFRUHV IRU ERWK WKH *UDSKLF %77 DQG 0DQXDO %77 SHUIRUPDQFHV *UDSKLF DQG PDQXDO WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH YHU\ GLVSDUDWH IRU VRPH VXEMHFWV 7KHUHIRUH LW FRXOG QRW EH DVVXPHG WKDW EHFDXVH VRPHRQH DFKLHYHG D FHUWDLQ VFRUH LQ RQH PHGLXP WKDW KH ZRXOG SHUIRUP VLPLODUO\ LQ WKH RWKHU PHGLXP $IWHU UDQN RUGHULQJ WKH WZR VHWV RI VFRUHV WKH KLJKHVW VFRUHV RI HDFK PHGLXP ZHUH GHVLJQDWHG DV WKH KLJK *UDSKLF DQG KLJK 0DQXDO %77 JURXSV 7KH QH[W KLJKHVW VFRUHV IRU HDFK PHGLXP ZHUH GHVLJQDWHG DV WKH PHGLXP *UDSKLF DQG PHGLXP 0DQXDO %77 JURXSV )LQDOO\ WKH ORZHVW VFRUHV IRU HDFK PHGLXP ZHUH GHILQHG UHVSHFWLYHO\ DV WKH ORZ *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 JURXSV 7KH VXEMHFWV IURP HDFK JURXS ZHUH DVVLJQHG IURP WKURXJK LWHPV RI WKH WRWDO LWHPV RI WKH %77 7KLV SURFHGXUH UHVXOWHG LQ VL[ FRPn SRVLWH WHVWV RI ZKLFK WKUHH ZHUH JUDSKLF DQG WKUHH ZHUH PDQXDO )RU HDFK PHGLXP WKHUH ZDV D VHSDUDWH WHVW IRU WKH KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ JURXSV 7KH VDPH W\SH RI YLGHR UHFRUGHU XWLOL]HG IRU WKH SUHYLRXV ILOPV ZDV DJDLQ HPSOR\HG IRU WKH WKUHH QHZ PDQXDO ILOPVf *UDSKLF UDWLQJV IRU WKH KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ FDWHJRULHV ZHUH FRPn SDUHG 7KHUH ZDV DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH WZR UDWHUV

PAGE 72

2YHUDOO PDQXDO UDWLQJV KDG DQ DJUHHPHQW RI 0DQXDO UDWLQJV IRU WKH KLJK FDWHJRU\ UHVXOWHG LQ DQ DJUHHPHQW RI 0DQXDO UDWLQJV IRU ERWK WKH PHGLXP DQG ORZ FDWHJRULHV VKRZHG D OHYHO RI DJUHHPHQW 7KH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ OHYHO RI DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ KLJK DQG WKH PHGLXP DQG ORZ FDWHJRULHV LV D JRRG LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH IOHHWLQJ QDWXUH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ )RU H[DPSOH PDQ\ RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH KLJK FDWHJRU\ XVHG f WKH VLJQ IRU WKH SRVVHVVLYH ZKLFK XQOHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ HPSKDVL]HG LV YHU\ GLIILFXOW WR GHWHUPLQH DV WR ZKHWKHU VLQJXODU RU SOXUDO SRVVHVVLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG +HQFH D YDOXH MXGJPHQW KDG WR EH PDGH 1RQH RI WKH VXEn MHFWV LQ WKH PHGLXP DQG ORZ FDWHJRULHV VKRZHG NQRZOHGJH RI WKH SRVVHVn VLYH VR WKLV YDOXH MXGJPHQW ZDV QRW QHFHVVDU\ $ QRUPDO ]WHVW IRU GLIIHUHQFH LQ SURSRUWLRQV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO UDWLQJV DW WKH OHYHO ZLWK B] EHLQJ HTXDO WR )& 5DWLQJ 7ZR JURXSV HDFK FRQWDLQLQJ WKUHH MXGJHV YLHZHG DQG UDWHG WKH VWXn GHQWVf IXQFWLRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VWRUHV $OO RI WKH MXGJHG ZHUH IOXHQW LQ VLJQLQJ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG (QJOLVK 6LQFH WKH\ ZHUH DOVR HPSOR\HG LQ YDULRXV FDSDFLWLHV ZLWK )6'% DOO ZHUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK DQ\ H[SUHVVLRQV RU VLJQV ZKLFK PLJKW EH FROORTXLDO WR WKDW VSHFLILF JHRJUDSKLFDO ORFDn WLRQ DQG SRSXODWLRQ (DFK RI WKH JURXSV FRQWDLQHG RQH KHDULQJ RQH GHDI DQG RQH KDUGRIKHDULQJ MXGJH %RWK JURXSV VDZ WKH VDPH VWRULHV KRZHYHU LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG D SRVVLEOH RUGHU HIIHFW WKH DSSHDUn DQFH RI WKH VWXGHQW LQ HDFK RI WKH WZR ILOPV ZDV UDQGRPL]HG 7KHUHIRUH WKH ORFDWLRQ RI D SDUWLFXODU VWXGHQW LQ *URXS $fV ILOP GLIIHUHG IURP WKH VDPH VWXGHQWfV DSSHDUDQFH LQ *URXS %fV ILOP $IWHU HDFK VWRU\ WKH MXGJHV ZHUH JLYHQ D RQH PLQXWH SDXVH WR UDWH WKHLU REVHUYDWLRQVf

PAGE 73

$OO RI WKH MXGJHV UHFHLYHG WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQV RUDOO\ PDQXDOO\ DQG JUDSKLFDOO\f GXULQJ WKH VDPH VHVVLRQ +RZHYHU HDFK JURXS LQGLYLn GXDOO\ VFRUHG LWV RZQ ILOP %HFDXVH RI WKH UDSLGLW\ RI WKH PDWHULDO WR EH VFRUHG WKH WZR JURXSV VDZ WKHLU VDPH ILOPV D VHFRQG WLPH D IHZ KRXUV DIWHU WKHLU ILUVW YLHZLQJ 7KH\ ZHUH JLYHQ DEEUHYLDWHG LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG ZHUH DOORZHG WR PDNH FKDQJHV IURP WKHLU SUHYLRXV REVHUYDWLRQV 7KH MXGJHV ZHUH JLYHQ D UDWLQJ VKHHW ZKLFK DVVHVVHG WKUHH GLPHQn VLRQV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ,W ZDV RQ WKLV VKHHW ZKHUH WKH\ PDUNHG WKHLU REVHUYDWLRQV 3DUW $ DVVHVVHG RYHUDOO FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIILFLHQF\ DQG WKH TXDOLW\ WR FRQYH\ JHQHUDO FRQFHSWV RQ D FDWHJRULFDO VFDOH RI 7KLV ZDV WKH 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH 3DUW % FRQWDLQHG DQ LWHP DQDO\VLV IRU VSHFLILF PDLQ DQG GHWDLO LGHDV RI WKH VWRU\ ,WHPV ZHUH VFRUHG DFFRUGLQJ WR D SRLQW V\VWHP $ VFRUH RI LQGLFDWHG WKH MXGJH ZDV FRQILGHQW WKDW WKH LGHD ZDV FRQn YH\HG LQ LWV HQWLUHW\ D VFRUH RI LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH MXGJH WKRXJKW WKH LGHD WR EH SDUWLDOO\ SUHVHQWHG DQG D VFRUH RI LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH MXGJH ZDV FHUWDLQ WKDW WKH LGHD ZDV FRPSOHWHO\ DEVHQW ,Q 3DUW & WKH UDWLR RI D VWXGHQW7V ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ WR VLJQLQJ SUHIHUHQFHV LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZDV UDWHG 7KH VFDOH UDQJHG IURP DOn PRVW WRWDO ILQJHU VSHOOLQJf WR DOPRVW WRWDO VLJQLQJf 6HH $SSHQGL[ ) IRU LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG WKH )XQFWLRQDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (YDOXDWLRQ 6KHHWf ,Q RUGHU WR REWDLQ DQ LQGH[ RI UHOLDELOLW\ IRU WKH UDWLQJV RI WKH )& (YDOXDWLRQ WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH TXHVWLRQV KDG WR EH GHWHUPLQHG :HUH WKHUH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH VL[ FRUUHODWLRQ PDWULFHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR HDFK MXGJH" :HUH WKHUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FRUUHODWLRQ PDWULFHV FRUn UHVSRQGLQJ WR HDFK W\SH RI MXGJH +DUGRI+HDULQJ 'HDI DQG +HDULQJf"

PAGE 74

:DV WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR FRUUHODWLRQ PDWULFHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ RI HDFK JURXS RUGHU HIIHFWf IRU WKH MXGJHV" 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ 7KHPH DQG 4XDOLW\ IRU DOO WKUHH RI WKH DERYH TXHVWLRQV ZDV DQDO\]HG E\ XVLQJ ff)LVKHUfV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ WR DSn SUR[LPDWH QRUPDOLW\f %UXQLQJ t .LQW] f $Q +f 4f WHVW IRU KRPRJHQHLW\ RI FRUUHODWLRQV 0HQGHQKDOO f ZDV WKHQ DSSOLHG 7KH f+f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f ZRXOG LQIOXHQFH WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFHV RI WKH GHDI D AWHVW IRU UHODWHG SDLUV ZDV XWLOL]HG 0HQGHQKDOO f ,Q RUGHU WR DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV WZR DQG WKUHH RI WKH 3UREOHP 6WDWHn PHQW D VLQJOH PHDVXUHPHQW IRU )& SURILFLHQF\ ZDV QHHGHG VR WKDW FRUUHn ODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKLV PHDVXUHPHQW DQG *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG GHPRn JUDSKLF GDWD FRXOG EH FRPSXWHG 7KH ORJLFDO PHDVXUHPHQW IRU )& ZRXOG EH WKH DYHUDJH UDWLQJV RI WKH MXGJHV RQ WKH RYHUDOO 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH 7KLV ZRXOG EH D VLPSOH DQG JRRG PHDVXUHPHQW LI LW FRXOG EH VKRZQ WKDW WKH MXGJHV DUULYHG DW WKH 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH DIWHU FDUHIXO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI DOO IDFWRUV RQ WKH )& (YDOXDWLRQ 6KHHW

PAGE 75

7KH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH 6HUYLFH f VHOHFWHG DQ YDULDEOH PRGHO IRU WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 4XDOLW\ 7KLV 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH ILUVW VHOHFWHG WKH YDULDEOH WKDW SUHn GLFWHG PRVW RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKLV FDVH 4XDOLW\f 7KH SURFHGXUH WKHQ FRQWLQXHG WR VHOHFW WKH QH[W PRVW LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU YDULDQFH RI WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH DGGLn WLRQ RI HDFK QHZ YDULDEOH DQG FRQVHTXHQW IRUPDWLRQ RI D QHZ PRGHO FRQn WLQXHG XQWLO DOO RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV FDVH WKH PDLQ DQG GHWDLO LGHDV DQG 7KHPH RI WKH )& (YDOXDWLRQ 6KHHWf 3UREDELOLW\ OHYHOV 5 V DQG )UDWLRV IRU HDFK RI WKH PRGHOV ZHUH DOVR GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH 7KH YDULDEOH PRGHO IRU 4XDOLW\ KDG DQ 5 RI ZLWK DOO IDFWRUV H[FHSW 7KHPH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO )Af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f DQG WKH MXGJHG OHYHO RI B)& WKH YDULDEOHV DV LQn GLFDWHG E\ WKH FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV SULQWHG E\ WKH 6$6 ZHUH REn VHUYHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHOV RI RU KLJKHU 7KH GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD HWLRORJ\ W\SH G% ORVV LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH SHUVRQV DW KRPH ZKR FDQ ILQJHU VSHOO DQGRU

PAGE 76

VLJQ DJH ZKHQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ ZDV ILUVW DFTXLUHG QXPEHU RI \HDUV DW )6'% UHDGLQJ OHYHO ,4 DJH UDFH VH[ DQG RWKHU LPSDLUHG IDPLO\ PHPn EHUVf KDG LWV VLJQLILFDQFH WR WKH *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG )& f PRGHOV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6$6 )RU DQ\ RI WKH WKUHH PRGHOV WKH GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG VLJn QLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO RU KLJKHU L

PAGE 77

7DEOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ 0RGHO IRU WKH 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH DV 6HOHFWHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6$6 5 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) 9$5,$%/(6 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7
PAGE 78

7DEOH 7KHPH 0DLQ 7RSLFV DQG 'HWDLO 7RSLFV IURP WKH )XQFWLRQDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (YDOXDWLRQ 3DUW % ,WHP $QDO\VLV 7+(0( $LUSODQH SLORWV KDYH PDQ\ MREV 0$,1 723,&6 '(7$,/ 723,&6 $rr WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ EHWZHHQ FLWLHV $ rr RI SHRSOH %rr RI IUHLJKW & rr RI PDLO % rr UHVFXHV 'rr DW ODQG rr DW VHD & GURSSLQJ IRRG ) rr WR KXQJU\ SHRSOH WR KXQJU\ DQLPDOV 'rr EULQJLQJ ]QLPDOV WR ]RRV IURP WKH MXQJOHV (rr DFW DV WUDIILF SROLFH + VSRW VSHHGLQJ FDUV RQ WKH KLJKZD\ r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO rr 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 79

&+$37(5 79 5(68/76 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 'DWD FRQFHUQLQJ WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH LQLWLDO VHFWLRQ RI WKLV FKDSWHU &RUUHn ODWLRQDO GDWD DPRQJ *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG MXGJHG OHYHO RI )& DUH IRXQG LQ WKH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ 3DUWLFXODU GHPRJUDSKLF GDWD DUH SUHn VHQWHG LQ WKH ILQDO VHFWLRQ %HFDXVH WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ DPRQJ VRPH RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZDV RI LQWHUHVW WKHUH LV VRPH RYHUODS LQWURGXFHG LQ WKH YDULRXV WDEOHV &RQVHTXHQWO\ 7DEOHV WKURXJK DUH FROOHFWLYHO\ SUHVHQWHG DW WKH HQG RI WKLV FKDSWHU /LQJXLVWLF 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 $ SDLUHG GLIIHUHQFH AVWDWLVWLF UHYHDOHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLn ILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH GHSHQGHQW RQ JUDSKLF RU PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV DQG UHVSRQVHV 7KH BWVWDWLVWLF LQGLFDWHG D GLIIHUHQFH LQ DYHUDJH WHVW VFRUHV IRU WKH WZR PHWKRGV DW WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH QHJDWLYH BWVWDWLVWLF LQGLFDWHG WKDW DYHUDJH WHVW VFRUHV IRU WKH *UDSKLF PHWKRG DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKRVH IRU WKH 0DQXDO PHWKRG 7DEOH VKRZV WKH VXEMHFWV LQGLYLGXDO VFRUHV IRU WKH *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 WDVNV 7DEOH FRQWDLQV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SHUIRUPn DQFHV 7KH UDQJH IRU JUDSKLF SHUIRUPDQFHV ZDV ZLWK D PHDQ RI

PAGE 80

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n ILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KLV LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ FRQVLGHULQJ WKDW WKH VDPH WHVW DQG SURWRFRO KDG EHHQ XWLOL]HG ZLWK WKH RQO\ PDQLSXODWHG YDULDEOHV EHLQJ WKRVH RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH 7KHVH VFRUHV PD\ DOVR EH YLHZHG LQ UHJDUG WR WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI WR SHUIRUP LQ D VLPLODU PDQQHU IRU WZR HQn WLUHO\ GLIIHUHQW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ PRGHV 7KXV WKH HODERUDWH WHVWLQJ SURFHn GXUHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU D YLVXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVH ZRXOG QRW EH QHFHVVDU\ LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ D PHDVXUHPHQW RI OLQJXLVWLF FRPSHWHQFH VLPLODU WR WKH RQH XWLOL]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7DEOH UHYHDOV D FRUUHODWLRQ RI EHWZHHQ WKH *UDSKLF %77 VFRUH DQG WKH TXDOLW\ )& VFRUH ZKLFK KDV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO RI %RWK WKH *UDSKLF %77 DQG )& UDWLQJV ZHUH GHSHQGHQW RQ VRPH IRUP RI UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ ZKLFK PD\ KDYH LQIOXHQFHG WKLV FRUUHODWLRQ WR VRPH H[WHQW

PAGE 81

7KH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV DQG TXDOLW\ )&A VFRUHV ZDV DW D VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO RI 7KXV 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV DQG TXDOn LW\ )& VFRUHV ODFNHG VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO +RZHYHU D VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO PLJKW VXJJHVW WR VRPH LQYHVWLJDWRUV WKDW 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV VKRXOG QRW EH FRPSOHWHO\ GLVFRXQWHG ,Q VXPPDU\ *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUn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f H[SODLQHG b RI WKH WRWDO YDULDQFH LQ JUDSKLF VFRUHV WKH PDQXDO PRGHO 7DEOH f H[SODLQHG b RI WKH WRWDO YDULDQFH LQ PDQXDO VFRUHV WKH )& PRGHO 7DEOH f H[SODLQHG b RI WKH WRWDO VFRUH YDULDQFH &ULn WHULRQ IRU HQWU\ RI D SDUWLFXODU GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH LQWR D PRGHO ZDV D PLQLPXP VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO RI (WLRORJ\ 7KHUH ZHUH VWXGHQWV ZKR ZHUH GHDI IURP ELUWK DQG ZKR DFn TXLUHG GHDIQHVV SUHOLQJXDOO\ )RU WKH FRPELQHG JURXS RI VXEMHFWV

PAGE 82

HWLRORJ\ ZDV IRXQG WR EH WKH IROORZLQJ XQNQRZQ UXEHOOD ELUWK WUDXPD KHUHGLW\ PHQLQJLWLV 5K IDFWRU HQn FHSKDOLWLV 7KH DERYH VHYHQ OHYHOV RI WKH YDULDEOH HWLRORJ\ ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ D GLFKRWRPRXVFRPSDULVRQ IRUPDW )RU H[DPSOH WKH UXEHOOD IDFWRU ZDV FRPSDUHG DJDLQVW DOO RI WKH RWKHU VL[ HWLRORJLHV RU WKH KHUHGLWDU\ IDFWRU ZDV FRPSDUHG DJDLQVW DOO VL[ RI WKH UHPDLQLQJ HWLRORJLFDO IDFWRUV 7KH IDFWRU RI KHUHGLW\ ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO )f I ,W FDQ WKHQ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW KHUHGLW\ VLJQLn ILFDQWO\ FRQWULEXWHV WR D SRVLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 7KLV UHVXOW IXUWKHU VXSSRUWV ILQGLQJV RI SUHYLRXV LQYHVWLJDWRUV WKDW GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV ZKR WKXV KDYH DQ HDUO\ H[SRVXUH WR D PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP SHUIRUP EHWWHU WKDQ GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV ZKR DUH GHQLHG WKLV HDUO\ H[SRVXUH (QFHSKDOLWLV ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH )7f PRGHO )Af I +RZHYHU WKHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH VXEMHFW ZKRVH HWLRORJ\ ZDV WKDW RI HQFHSKDOLWLV VR WKH FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK B)& VKRXOG EH DVVHVVHG ZLWK WKDW IDFWRU LQ PLQG G% /RVV $FFRUGLQJ WR 6LOYHUPDQ f WKH WHUP GHDI LV XVHG IRU FKLOn GUHQ ZKR GR QRW KDYH VXIILFLHQW UHVLGXDO KHDULQJ WR HQDEOH WKHP WR XQGHUVWDQG VSHHFK VXFFHVVIXOO\ HYHQ ZLWK D KHDULQJ DLG ZLWKRXW VSHFLDO LQVWUXFWLRQ Sf +H XVHG +XL]LQJV FODVVLILFDWLRQ f ZKLFK UHODWHG ORVV DV H[SUHVVHG E\ SXUHWRQH DXGLRPHWU\ 7KH VXJJHVWHG FDWHJRULHV SHUWLQHQW WR WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH

PAGE 83

*UDGH ,,, G% VHYHUH ORVV *UDGH ,9 0RUH WKDQ G% GHDI QR VSHHFK XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DELOLW\f S f 7KH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ KDG D G% ORVV UDQJLQJ IURP f LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU 7KH REYLRXV FRQFOXVLRQ LV WKDW DOO VXEn MHFWV ZHUH VHYHUHO\ KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG )RU ERWK WKH *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 PRGHOV WKH YDULDEOH G% ORVV ZDV QRW HYHQ LQFOXGHG LQ WKH PRGHO 7KLV ZRXOG FRQFXU ZLWK WKH UHVXOWV RI RWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQV ZKLFK IRXQG WKLV YDULDEOH IRU WKH VHYHUHO\ KHDULQJ LPSDLUHGf WR EH LQVLJQLILFDQW IRU DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV +RZHYHU LQ WKH )& PRGHO WKLV YDULDEOH ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )f I 2WKHU VWXGLHV RI VLJQLQJ LQ WKH GHDI KDYH EHHQ PRUH FRQ FRPPXQLFD QRW WR P\ NQRZOHGJH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH VSHFLILF DPRXQW RI ORVV RQFH LW ZDV DVFHUWDLQHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFW ZDV GHDI 5HDGLQJ /HYHO 7KH PDLQ UHDGLQJ OHYHO RI WKH VXEMHFWV REWDLQHG IURP WKH VFKRROfV UHFRUGV RQ WKH 6WDQIRUG $FKLHYHPHQW 7HVW 6$7f UHYHDOHG D VFRUH RI ILIWK \HDU WKLUG PRQWKf ZLWK D VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI 7KH LQGLn YLGXDO OHYHOV UDQJHG IURP 5HDGLQJ OHYHO ZDV WKH RQO\ YDULDEOH RI VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH RQ WKH *UDSKLF %77 )f I 2Q WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO UHDGLQJ OHYHO ZDV DJDLQ WKH PRVW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH )f I 7KH IDFW WKDW UHDGLQJ OHYHO ZDV DOVR WKH RVW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH RQ WKH )& PRGHO )f I HPSKDVL]HG WKDW WKLV YDULDEOH ZDV E\ IDU WKH PRVW SRZHUIXO IRU DOO WKUHH WDVNV ZKLFK ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG 2WKHU UHVHDUFKHUV

PAGE 84

KDYH DOVR IRXQG UHDGLQJ OHYHO WR EH RQH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOHV IRU KLJK OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH $JH :KHQ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ )LUVW $FTXLUHG )LQJHU VSHOOLQJ DFTXLVLWLRQ UDQJHG IURP DOPRVW DW ELUWK LQ FDVHV RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWVf WR DJH 7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV VWDWLVWLn FDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO Af I 7KLV VLJQLILFDQFH LV LQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH GDWD FROOHFWHG E\ SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFKHUV ZKLFK VWUHVVHG HDUO\ H[SRVXUH WR ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ IRU LWV PD[LPXP EHQHILW IRU WKH GHDInV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WR EH DFKLHYHG $JH 7KH VXEMHFWV IRU WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ UDQJHG LQ DJH IURP 7KH PHGLDQ DJH ZDV \HDUV ZLWK D VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI 2QO\ IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 ZDV WKLV YDULDEOH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILn FDQW @f IA :LWK WKH VXEMHFWVn DJHV VR FORVH WRn JHWKHU LW LV GLIILFXOW WR GLVFHUQ ZK\ WKLV VKRXOG EH VXFK D VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH DQG RQO\ IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO )LUVW /DQJXDJH LQ WKH +RPH (QJOLVK ZDV WKH SULPDU\ ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH IRU VWXGHQWV 6LJQ ZDV WKH SULPDU\ ODQJXDJH IRU WZR VWXGHQWV DQG RQH VWXGHQW UHSRUWHG D FRPELQDWLRQ RI (QJOLVK DQG VLJQ DV WKH ODQJXDJH RI WKH KRPH 7KHVH WKUHH OHYHOV RI WKH YDULDEOH ILUVW KRPH ODQJXDJH ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ D GLFKRWRPRXVFRPSDULVRQ IRUPDW ZKHUH QR OHYHO UHDFKHG WKH VLJQLILn FDQFH OHYHO IRU LQFOXVLRQ LQ DQ\ RI WKH PRGHOV

PAGE 85

2WKHU +HDULQJ ,PSDLUHG )DPLO\ 0HPEHUV )URP DPRQJ DOO RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ RQO\ VXEMHFWV UHn SRUWHG WKDW RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKHLU LPPHGLDWH IDPLO\ ZHUH KHDULQJ LPn SDLUHG 7KLV YDULDEOH ODFNHG VLJQLILFDQFH IRU DOO WKUHH PRGHOV 7KH ORZ QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV YDULDEOH PD\ EH RQH RI WKH UHDVRQV LW ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW 3HUVRQV DW +RPH :KR &DQ )LQJHU 6SHOO DQGRU 6LJQ 7KH DERYH YDULDEOH FRQWDLQHG WKUHH OHYHOV ZKLFK ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ D GLFKRWRPRXVFRPSDULVRQ IRUPDW ZKHUH QR OHYHO DWWDLQHG DQ\ VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH IRU DQ\ PRGHO 1R PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DW KRPH ZDV UHn SRUWHG E\ VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG VRPH PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG UHn SRUWHG WKDW PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZDV IUHTXHQW DW KRPH 7KH ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKH ODVW WKUHH YDULDEOHV FLWHGf§ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH RWKHU KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV SHUVRQV DW KRPH ZKR FDQ ILQJHU VSHOO DQGRU VLJQPD\ DOO ODFN VLJQLILFDQFH IRU VLPLODU UHDVRQV 7KH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH ROGHU VWXGHQWV ZKR OLYHG LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG HQYLURQPHQW RI )6'% ZKHUH HYHU\RQH ILQJHU VSHOOHG DQG VLJQHG 7KHUH ZRXOG EH WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH HIIHFW RI WKH IDPLO\ ZDV UHSODFHG E\ WKDW RI D SHHU JURXS 1XPEHU RI
PAGE 86

7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ ERWK WKH *UDSKLF %77 DQG )& PRGHOV EXW DW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW OHYHOV 7KH IDFW WKDW \HDUV RI DWn WHQGDQFH ZDV FRPSOHWHO\ H[FOXGHG IURP WKH 0DQXDO %77 FRXOG EH D SRVVLEOH DUJXPHQW WKDW WKLV YDULDEOH KDG QR VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH UHODWLYH WR SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH WDVNV RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LD 7KH VXEMHFWV ,4 VFRUHV ZKHQ PHDVXUHG RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH WHVW RI WKH :HFKVOHU 7HVW RI ,QWHOOLJHQFH :,6&f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

PAGE 87

7KH PHWKRGV RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVHf§JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDOf§ RI WKH %77 GLG LQIOXHQFH WKH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH GHDI 7KH *UDSKLF %77 VFRUHV ZHUH KLJKHU WKDQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV DW WKH VWDWLVWLn FDOO\ VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO RI *UDSKLF %77 VFRUHV DQG WKH MXGJHG OHYHO RI )& SURILFLHQF\ ZHUH KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHG DW WKH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW OHYHO RI +RZHYHU FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV DQG )& SURILFLHQF\ ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO RI FRQILGHQFH *UDSKLF %77 VFRUHV DQG 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV ZHUH ERWK VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG DW WKH OHYHO 7KH SDUWLFXODU GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZKLFK VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQn IOXHQFHG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG )& ZHUH Df *UDSKLF %77 f5HDGLQJ OHYHO VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf Ef 0DQXDO %77 f 5HDGLQJ OHYHO VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf f (WLRORJ\f§+HUHGLW\ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf f $JH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf f $JH RI /HDUQLQJ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf Ff )& 5DWLQJ f 5HDGLQJ /HYHO VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf f G% /RVV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf f (WLRORJ\f§(QFHSKDOLWLV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHOf

PAGE 88

7DEOH 6XEMHFWVn *UDSKLF %77 ,QGLYLGXDO 6FRUHV IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 DQG )& 5DWLQJV *5$3+,& %77D 0$18$/ %77E )& 5$7,1*

PAGE 89

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG 68%-(&7 *5$3+,& %77D 0$18$/ %77E )& 5$7,1* VFRUH RXW RI D SRVVLEOH FRUUHFW AVFRUH RXW RI D SRVVLEOH FRUUHFW DYHUDJH RI MXGJHV UDWLQJV RQ D VFDOH IURP

PAGE 90

7DEOH 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 0LQLPXP DQG 0D[LPXP 6FRUHV IRU WKH *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 DQG B)& 7DVNV DV 2EWDLQHG IURP WKH /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ 0RGHO RI WKH 6$6 67$1'$5' 9$5,$%/(6 0($1 '(9,$7,21 0,1,080 0$;,080 *UDSKLF %77t 0DQXDO %77E )&& E WRWDO RI LWHPV WRWDO FEDVHG UDQJH RI LWHPV RQ 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH ZKLFK KDG D YHU\ SRRUf WR YHU\ JRRGf

PAGE 91

7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQ &RHIILFLHQWV DPRQJ WKH *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77DQG )& 6FRUHV DV 6KRZQ E\ WKH &RUUHODWLRQ 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6$6 9$5,$%/(6 *5$3+,& %77 0$18$/ %77 )& *UDSKLF %77 rr rr 0DQXDO %77 rr )& rr r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO rr 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 92

7DEOH /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ 0RGHO IRU WKH 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH *UDSKLF %77 DV 6HOHFWHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6$6 5 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) 9$5,$%/(6 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) $JH RI /HDUQLQJ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ
PAGE 93

7DEOH /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ 0RGHO IRU WKH 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH DV 6HOHFWHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH RI 0DQXDO %77 WKH 6$6 5 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) 9$5,$%/(6 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7

PAGE 94

7DEOH /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ 0RGHO IRU WKH 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH )& 8WLOL]LQJ 4XDOLW\ 6FRUH DV WKH 8QLW RI 0HDVXUHf DV 6HOHFWHG E\ WKH )RUZDUG 6WHSZLVH 3URFHGXUH RI WKH 6$6 5 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) 9$5,$%/(6 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7
PAGE 95

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG 5 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< ) 9$5,$%/(6 ) 5$7,2 352%$%,/,7< 9n) (WLRORJ\ (QFHSKDOLWLV r 3UHVHQWDWLRQ 2UGHU RI 7DVNV r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO rr 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 96

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< $1' ',6&866,21 'LVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LV GHVLJQHG VR WKDW WKH PDMRU ILQGLQJV UHODWLQJ WR WKH WZR VSHFLILF UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV OLQJXLVWLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ PHWKRGV DQG SRVVLEOH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VSHFLILF OLQJXLVWLF VFRUHV DQG WKH IXQFWLRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWLYHn QHVV RI $0(6/$1f DUH SUHVHQWHG ILUVW 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI GHPRJUDSKLF IDFWRUV LV ODWHU LQWURGXFHG )LQDOO\ VXJJHVWLRQV IRU ODQJXDJH LQWHUn YHQWLRQ DQG LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK DUH SUHVHQWHG 0RUSKRORJLFDO $VVHVVPHQW ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH GHDI DV D UHVXOW RI WZR SUHVHQWDn WLRQ PHWKRGV ZDV WKH LQLWLDO UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ 7KH SULPDU\ REMHFWLYH ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH LI ZULWWHQ OLQJXLVWLF WDVNV DGHTXDWHO\ UHIOHFW WKH GHDIfV OLQJXLVWLF NQRZOHGJH RU LV WKHLU SRRU SHUIRUPDQFH D UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKHLU GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH PHGLXP RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ ZLWK WKH PDWHULDO LWVHOI" *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 $ SDLUHG GLIIHUHQFH WVWDWLVWLF UHYHDOHG SAL f LQ OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH GHSHQGHQW ZLWK WKH DYHUDJH VFRUHV IRU WKH JUDSKLF PHWKRG KLJKHU WKDQ WKDW IRU WKH PDQXDO PHWKRG f D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH RQ PRGH RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ f VLJQLILFDQWO\ ,W FDQ WKHUHIRUH EH

PAGE 97

LQIHUUHG WKDW IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI WKLV W\SH DVVHVVPHQWV RI WKH FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ RI JUDSKLFDOO\ SUHVHQWHG PDWHULDOV SURYLGH YDOLG LQGHHG VXSHULRU LQGLFDWLRQV RI OLQJXLVWLF FRPSHWHQF\ RI WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK E\ WKH GHDI 'LVFXVVLRQ $PRQJ WKH LQWHUHVWLQJ DQG SODXVLEOH K\SRWKHVHV IRU WKH DERYH UHn VXOWV DUH HUURU KLHUDUFK\ QDWXUH RI WKH WHVW IRUPDW DQG VSHFLILF W\SHV RI HUURUV 7KHVH WRSLFV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ +LHUDUFK\ RI (UURUV $Q DQDO\VLV RI HUURUV IRU WKLV VWXG\ UHYHDOHG D KLHUDUFK\ RI LWHP GLIILFXOW\ VLPLODU WR WKDW RI &RRSHUfV f LQYHVWLJDWLRQ VHH &KDSn WHU ,, 0RUSKRORJLFDO 5HVHDUFKf ,Q WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DV LQ &RRSHUfV f SOXUDO QRXQV DQG SDVW WHQVH ZHUH DOVR IRXQG WR EH WKH HDVLHVW LWHPV DQG WKH GHULYDWLRQDO LWHPV WKH PRVW GHYLDQW 7KH IRXU LWHPV ZKLFK ZHUH PLVVHG E\ PRUH WKDQ KDOI RI /DUVRQ HW DOfV f DGXOW PRGHOV GHULYHG ZRUGV GLPLQXWLYH FRPSRXQG DMHQWLYH DGMHFWLYHf ZHUH DOVR LQFRUUHFW IRU WKH YDVW PDMRULW\ RI WKH )6'% VWXGHQWV 7DEOH VKRZV WKH PRUSKRORJLFDO KLHUDUFK\ DFFRUGLQJ WR SHUFHQWDJHV FRUUHFW IRU ERWK WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV 7DEOH LOOXVn WUDWHV WKH SHUFHQWDJHV FRUUHFW IRU HDFK PRUSKRORJLFDO VWUXFWXUH DFFRUG LQW WR WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SURFHGXUHV 3OXUDOV DQG SDVW WHQVH ZHUH DSSDUHQWO\ WKH HDVLHVW LWHPV *HQHUn DOO\ ERWK JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV IROORZHG WKH VDPH KLHUDUFK\ EXW ZLWK WKH PDQXDO VFRUHV IDU PRUH GHSUHVVHG WKDQ WKH JUDSKLF VFRUHV :LWK SHUIRUPDQFH RQ GHULYHG ZRUGV VR SRRU IRU ERWK SUHVHQWDWLRQV LW ZRXOG EH GLIILFXOW WR PDNH DQ\ FRPSDULVRQV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV RI VFRUHV +RZHYHU WKH PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ GLG DLG VRPH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH

PAGE 98

7DEOH +LHUDUFK\ $FFRUGLQJ WR 3HUFHQWDJHV &RUUHFW IRU *UDSKLF %77 DQG 0DQXDO %77 *5$3+,& %77 b &255(&7 25'(5 0$18$/ %77 b &255(&7 3OXUDOV 3OXUDOV 3DVW 7HQVH 3DVW 7HQVH 3URJUHVVLYH 3URJUHVVLYH 3RVVHVVLYH 6LQJXODU $GMHFWLYH 6XSHUODWLYH 7KLUG 3HUVRQ 6LQJXODU 3RVVHVVLYH 3OXUDO $G M HFWLYH 6XSHUODWLYH $GMHFWLYH &RPSDUDWLYH $GM HFWLYH &RPSDUDWLYH 7KLUG 3HUVRQ 6LQJXODU 3RVVHVVLYH 3OXUDO 3RVVHVVLYH 6LQJXODU 'HULYHG :RUG 1>DMHQWLYHHUf@ 'HULYHG :RUG 1>DMHQWLYHHUf@ 'HULYHG :RUG $GM HFWLYH 'HULYHG :RUG 1GLPLQXWLYHf 'HULYHG :RUG 1GLPLQXWLYHf 'HULYHG :RUG 1FRPSRXQGf L 'HULYHG :RUG 1FRPSRXQGf 'HULYHG :RUG $G M HFWLYH

PAGE 99

Z 7DEOH 3HUFHQWDJHV &RUUHFW IRU 0RUSKRORJLFDO 6WUXFWXUHV IRU *UDSKLF %,7 DQG 0DQXDO %77 *5$3+,& %77 6758&785( 0$18$/ %77 3OXUDO 3DVW 7HQVH 3URJUHVVLYH &RPSDUDWLYH $GMHFWLYHV 6XSHUODWLYH &RPSDUDWLYH 3RVVHVVLRQ 6LQJXODU 3OXUDO 'HULYHG 1RXQV $MHQWLYHHUf &RPSRXQG 'LPLQXWLYH 'HULYHG $GMHFWLYH

PAGE 100

IRUPDWLRQ RI WKH FRPSRXQG ZRUG FRUUHFWf DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH JUDSKLF VFRUH FRUUHFWf IRU WKH VDPH VWUXFWXUH DQG IRU SOXUDO SRVVHVVLRQ FRUUHFW DV RSSRVHG WR FRUUHFWf 1DWXUH RI WKH 7HVW )RUPDW 7KLV VHFWLRQ LV D FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH SURSHUWLHV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO WHVW SUHVHQWDWLRQV ZKLFK FRXOG DFFRXQW IRU WKH VXSHULRU JUDSKLF SHUIRUPDQFHV $JH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DFTXLVLWLRQ $OWKRXJK ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ LV HPSOR\HG LQ FODVVURRP LQVWUXFWLRQ DW )6'% WKH DJH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DFTXLVLWLRQ E\ WKH VXEMHFWV YDULHG IURP HDUO\ LQIDQF\ WR DJH 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI HDUO\ H[SRVXUH WR ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG LWV EHQHILFLDO LPn SDFW RQ ODWHU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO DFKLHYHPHQW KDV EHHQ ZHOO GRFXPHQWHG +RHPDQQ +RHPDQQ $QGUHZV )ORULDQ +RHPDQQ t -HQVHPD 4XLJOH\ f 1RW RQO\ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ EXW DQ\ V\VWHPDWLF LQWHQVLYH ODQJXDJH H[SRVXUH DW WKH SUHVFKRRO OHYHO KDV EHHQ IRXQG EHQHILFLDO IRU ODWHU VFKRODVWLF DFKLHYHPHQW 6DUDFKDQ'HLO\ t /RYH f 1DWXUH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ 7UDQVLHQW DQG HSKHPHUDO TXDOLWLHV DUH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK )LVKHU t +XVD f 7KHVH YDULDEOHV GHPDQG PXFK YLVXDO DOHUWQHVV DQG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ ,W ZDV SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKDW LQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI FDVHV LI WKH FUXFLDO QRQVHQVH VWLPXOL RU TXHVWLRQ ZDV QRW VHHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFW KLV PDQXDO UHVSRQVH ZDV LQFRUUHFW 7KLV ZDV REVHUYHG IRU WHVW LWHPV ZKHUH WKH VXEMHFW FRQVLVWHQWO\ UHVSRQGHG FRUUHFWO\ IRU D SDUWLFXODU VWUXFWXUH 7KHUHIRUH WKHUH ZDV OLWWOH GRXEW WKDW WKH VWXGHQW ODFNHG NQRZOHGJH IRU WKH WHVW LWHP

PAGE 101

7KLV HSKHPHUDO TXDOLW\ DOVR DSSOLHV WR WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ 6RPH OHWWHUV LH ] f KDYH VHYHUDO GLVWLQFWLYH FKDUDFn WHULVWLFV ZKLFK UHQGHU WKHP HDV\ WR PDNH DQG WR GLVFHUQ 2WKHU OHWWHUV DQG V\PEROV KDYH QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO IHDWXUHV LH H Vf RU YHU\ IOHHWLQJ PDUNHUV LH SRVVHVVLRQf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n FRUGLQJ KDG D VSHFLILF WLPH OLPLW IRU HDFK UHVSRQVH 0RQLWRU YLHZLQJ ,Q RUGHU WR LQVXUH WKDW DOO VXEMHFWV VDZ WKH VDPH SUHVHQWDWLRQ LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR UHFRUG WKH WHVW RQ YLGHR WDSH 7KHUH FRXOG EH VRPH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ REVHUYLQJ D OLYH ILQJHU VSHOOn LQJ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG REVHUYLQJ WKH VDPH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RQ D ODUJH PRQLWRU )URP WKH IHDWXUHV FLWHG IRU WHVW IRUPDW LW FRXOG EH DUJXHG WKDW WKH PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ IDLOHG WR DFFXUDWHO\ UHIOHFW D VWXGHQWIV NQRZn OHGJH RI PRUSKRORJLFDO UXOHV ZKHQ IRUFHG WR GHSHQG VROHO\ RQ D IOHHWLQJ YLVXDO PHGLXP ZLWK WKH DGGLWLRQDO DLGV RI OLS UHDGLQJ VNLOOV DQG UHVLGXDO KHDULQJ

PAGE 102

(UURU 6HYHUDO GLVWLQFW W\SHV RI HUURUV ZHUH REVHUYHG IRU PDQ\ VWXGHQWV A RQ WKH JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV 7KHVH HUURU W\SHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ (UUDWLF )RU PDQ\ LWHPV DV LQ FRPSDUDWLYH SRVVHVVLYH DQG GHn ULYHG ZRUGVf LW ZDV DSSDUHQW WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH XQFHUWDLQ DV WR WKH FRUUHFW PRUSKRORJLFDO LQIOHFWLRQV 7KH UHVSRQVHV IRU JUDSKLF DQG PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQV IRU WKH VDPH LWHP ZHUH GLIIHUHQW EXW LQ ERWK SUHVHQWDWLRQV UHVSRQVHV ZHUH LQFRUUHFW DQG RIWHQ HUUDWLF ,Q PDQ\ FDVHV VWXGHQWV PHUHO\ UHSHDWHG WKH QRQVHQVH ZRUG RU VXEVWLWXWHG D UHDO ZRUG IRU D SLFn WXUH RI VRPH UHDO REMHFW ZKLFK DSSHDUHG RQ WKH VWLPXOXV FDUG ,Q WKHVH LQVWDQFHV PRGH RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ KDG QR HIIHFW 7KH VWXGHQW ZDV DSSDUHQWO\ XQDZDUH RI WKH UHTXLUHG UHVSRQVH DQG FRQFHSW .QRZOHGJH RI FRQFHSW ,Q VRPH FDVHV WKH VXEMHFWV LQGLFDWHG QR NQRZOHGJH RI WKH FRPSDUDWLYH DQG VXSHUODWLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV RQ WKH JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ +RZHYHU LQ WKH PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ WKHUH ZDV DQ LQGLFDn WLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH RI WKHVH WZR FRQFHSWV )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKHVH FDVHV WKH VWXGHQW ILQJHU VSHOOHG PRUH OLJJ\ DQG HYHQ PRUH OLJJ\ IRU WKH FRPSDUDWLYH DQG VXSHUODWLYH UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KHVH UHVSRQVHV DUH HTXLYDn OHQW DV WR KRZ WKH FRQFHSWV FRPSDUDWLYH DQG VXSHUODWLYH DUH VLJQHG 5HVSRQVHV RI WKLV QDWXUH ZHUH VFRUHG DV LQFRUUHFW DV LW ZDV WKH FRUUHFW PRUSKRORJLFDO LQIOHFWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV GHVLUHG +RZHYHU H[DPSOHV RI WKLV W\SH DUH DQ LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW PDQXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ FDQ IDFLOLWDWH NQRZn OHGJH RU FRQFHSW UHFDOO DOEHLW QRW LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK IRUP ZKHUH D JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZRXOG QRW GR VR 6SRUDGLF DQGRU FRQIXVHG UHVSRQVHV 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ WKLV PRUSKRn ORJLFDO WHVW ZDV IUHTXHQWO\ VSRUDGLF )RU H[DPSOH SDVW WHQVH RU SOXUDO

PAGE 103

LWHPV ZRXOG EH FRUUHFWO\ DQVZHUHG H[FHSW IRU RQH RU WZR 7KLV ZDV REn VHUYHG IRU ERWK JUDSKLF DQG IRU ILQJHU VSHOOHG UHVSRQVHV ZKHUH WKH H[n DPLQHU IHOW FRQILGHQW WKDW WKH VXEMHFW KDG REVHUYHG WKH VWLPXOXV LWHP 6SRUDGLF NQRZOHGJH RI JHQHUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ E\ WKH GHDI KDV EHHQ REVHUYHG E\ FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV 7KHUHIRUH VLPSO\ EHFDXVH PDVWHU\ RI WKH VXSHUODWLYH LV LQGLFDWHG NQRZOHGJH RI WKH FRPSDUDWLYH VKRXOG QRW EH DVVXPHG 7KHUH ZDV DOVR HYLGHQFH RI FRQIXVLRQ IRU FHUWDLQ VWUXFWXUHV DV LQ WKH SRVVHVVLYH 6HYHUDO VXEMHFWV HPSOR\HG QDGf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n WLYH DUH VLJQHG FRXOG EH DQ H[DPSOH RI WKH ODQJXDJH LQWHUIHUHQFH K\n SRWKHVLV 7KLV LV D SKHQRPHQRQ H[SHULHQFHG E\ PDQ\ RI WKH GHDI EHWZHHQ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK DQG VRPH VRUW RI VLJQLQJ V\VWHP ,W FDQ EH FRPSDUHG WR WKH ODQJXDJH LQWHUIHUHQFH RI D \RXQJ FKLOG LQ D ELOLQJXDO HQYLURQPHQW 7KH VSRUDGLF DQG FRQIXVHG LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV PD\ EH YLHZHG DV DQ LQWHUPHGLDWH VWDWH WKDW H[LVWV SULRU WR WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG FRQVLVWHQW XVDJH RI WKH FRUUHFW VWUXFWXUH 2U FRQVLGHULQJ WKH DJH RI WKH VXEn MHFWV DQG WKH VLPSOH VWUXFWXUHV XQGHU VFUXWLQ\ WKH LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV

PAGE 104

FRXOG EH DWWULEXWHG WR D FRQIXVHG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ IRU D SDUWLFXODU VWUXFn WXUH
PAGE 105

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f IRXQG WKDW KLV PRUSKRORJLFDO WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH UHODWHG WR UHDGLQJ DFKLHYHPHQW DOWKRXJK D VXEVHTXHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW GLIILFXOWLHV LQ UHDGLQJ WHVW LWHPV GLG QRW GHSUHVV WHVW VFRUHV 7KH UHDGLQJ OHYHO RI WKH %77 ZDV YHU\ ORZf§DERXW WKH OHYHO RI WKH ILUVW JUDGH $QG IURP DQ DQDO\VLV RI HUURU SDWWHUQV LW FDQ EH FRQFOXGHG WKDW HUURUV UHVXOWHG IURP ODFN RI OLQJXLVWLF NQRZOHGJH UDWKHU WKDQ IURP GLIn ILFXOW\ ZLWK WKH PHGLXP 7KH SDUDJUDSK ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV UHDG ZDV QHDU WKH IRXUWK JUDGH OHYHO EXW DV WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV FRPPXQLFDWLYH DELOLW\ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU ZKHQ QHFHVVDU\ VLJQHG WKH VWRU\ DQG KHOSHG WKH VXEn MHFWV ZLWK XQIDPLOLDU ZRUGV ,W LV DOZD\V GLIILFXOW WR FKDQJH IURP RQH PHGLXP WKH JUDSKLF SDUDJUDSKf DQG PHDVXUH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ DQRWKHU PHGLXP $0(6/$1f 7KH TXHVWLRQ PLJKW EH SRVHG WKDW LW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ

PAGE 106

PRUH VXLWDEOH IRU WKH SDUDJUDSK VWRU\ WR EH VLJQHG WR WKH VXEMHFW DQG WKXV SRVVLEO\ DYRLG FRQIXVLRQ WUDQVIHUHQFH IURP RQH PHGLXP WR DQRWKHU +RZHYHU LW PXVW EH UHPHPEHUHG WKDW EHFDXVH RI WKH WUDQVLHQW QDWXUH RI VLJQLQJ DQRWKHU YDULDEOH PHPRU\ ZKLFK WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU KDG KRSHG WR PLQLPL]H DV PXFK DV SRVVLEOH ZRXOG KDYH EHFRPH HYHQ PRUH LPSRUWDQW 6XSSRUW IRU WKLV VWDWHPHQW PD\ EH IRXQG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZKHUH VWXGHQWV GLG QRW UHVSRQG WR %77 LWHPV ZKHUH WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH NQRZQ WKH DQVZHU EHn FDXVH WKH\ PLVVHG WKH VWLPXOXV ZRUG 7KH MXGJHV UDWHG WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI PRVW RI WKH VWXGHQWV DV VOLJKWO\ EHORZ DYHUDJH ZLWK WKH PHDQ VFRUH RI )URP SUHYLRXV LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI WKH ZULWWHQ FRPSRVLWLRQV E\ WKH GHDI 4XLJOH\ 6PLWK t :LOEXU 5XVVHOO 4XLJOH\ t 3RZHU f LW ZRXOG EH YDOLG WR VXSSRVH WKDW LI WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR ZULWH ZKDW WKH\ UHPHPEHUHG IURP WKH SDUDJUDSK WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV DV MXGJHG E\ WUDGLWLRQDO OLQJXLVWLF VWDQGDUGV PLJKW EH HYDOXDWHG DV YHU\ IDU EHORZ DYHUDJH :LWK RQH H[FHSWLRQ WKH PRUSKRORJLFDO VFRUHV RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDn WLRQ ZHUH ORZHU WKDQ WKRVH REWDLQHG E\ &RRSHUrV f \HDU ROG KHDUn LQJ VXEMHFWV +RZHYHU WKH MXGJHVr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

PAGE 107

GDWD ZKLFK XWLOL]H VKRUW PHPRU\ XQLWVf§OHWWHUV GHVLJQV VHQWHQFHV $OO LWHPV LQ WKH SDUDJUDSK VWRU\ ZHUH DVVLJQHG KLHUDUFKLFDO FDWHJRULHV DFn FRUGLQJ WR D WKHRU\ RI .LQWVFK f VHH 6HFWLRQ &KDSWHU ,,f 7KH VHOHFWHG YDULDEOHV WHQGHG WR VXSSRUW VRPH RI .LQWVFKrV f ILQGLQJV RQ SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXGLHV ZLWK KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV 6XSHURUGLQDWHV PDLQ WRSLFVf ZLWK D PHDQ VFRUH RI XWLOL]LQJ D SRLQW UDWLQJ V\VWHPf ZHUH GHILQHG EHVW 6XERUGLQDWHV GHWDLOVf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

PAGE 108

6LJQLILFDQW 9DULDEOHV 5HDGLQJ OHYHO ZDV WKH RQO\ YDULDEOH VLJQLILFDQW IRU DOO WKUHH PRGHOV f ,W ZDV WKH RQO\ VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU IRU WKH *UDSKLF %77 PRGHO )RU WKH 0DQXDO %77 WKH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH HWLRORJ\KHUHGLW\ f DJH RI WKH VXEMHFW f DQG DJH RI OHDUQLQJ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ f $OWKRXJK PDQ\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH )& PRGHO WKH RQO\ VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW RQHV ZHUH G% ORVV f DQG HWLRORJ\HQFHSKDOLWLV f 'LVFXVVLRQ $OO YDULDEOHV WKDW ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH GHDOW ZLWK LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ 7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV IRU WKH WKUHH LQYHVWLJDn WLYH WDVNV DUH SUHVHQWHG ILUVW 5HDGLQJ /HYHO 7KLV ZDV WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH DV LW FRQWULEXWHG WR DOO WKUHH WDVN PHDVXUHV DW WKH OHYHO 7KLV KLJK FRUUHODWLRQ RI UHDGLQJ OHYHO DQG OLQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH ZRXOG EH LQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKH GDWD RI WKH SUHYLRXV LQYHVWLJDWLRQV $QGHUVRQ $QNHQ t +ROPHV 4XLJOH\ :LOEXU t 0RQWDQHOOL 5XVVHOO 4XLJOH\ t 3RZHU 6FKROHV HW DO LQ SUHVV 6FKROHV HW DO 6WRNRH :LOEXU HW DO :LOFR[ t 7RELQ f 7KLV LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ VLQFH UHDGLQJ OHYHO ZRXOG LQYROYH FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ RI ZULWWHQ PDWHULDO WKHUHIRUH IRU WKHVH VXEMHFWV WKH JUHDWHU WKH OLQJXLVWLF VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ WKH KLJKHU WKH *UDSKLF %77 DQG )&A UDWLQJ %RWK RI WKHVH WDVNV UHTXLUHG VRPH UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ 7KH IDFW WKDW UHDGn LQJ OHYHO ZDV DOVR VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 FRXOG EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKH PDQQHUV RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG VLJQHG

PAGE 109

(QJOLVKf DUH ERWK YLVXDO RYHUOD\V RQ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK DQG WKH PDQXDO UHVSRQVHV ZHUH VFRUHG DV WR WKH FRUUHFW (QJOLVK PRUSKHPLF UHVSRQVH 7KH KLJK VLJQLILFDQFH RI UHDGLQJ OHYHO RQ DOO WKUHH WDVNV FRXOG DOVR EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH IDFWRU RI OLQJXLVWLF VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ QRW RQO\ IRU WUDGLn WLRQDO (QJOLVK EXW DOVR LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPPXQLFDWH LQ $0(6/$1 (WLRORJ\ )RU WKLV YDULDEOH VHYHQ OHYHOV ZHUH DQDO\]HG LQ D GLFKRWRPRXV FRPSDULVRQ IRUPDW 7KH VHYHQ OHYHOV ZHUH XQNQRZQ UXEHOOD ELUWK WUDXPD KHUHGLW\ PHQLQJLWLV 5K IDFWRU DQG HQFHSKDOLWLV +HUHGLW\ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO ZDV RQH RI WKH IRXU VWDn WLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH IRXQG WKDW GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV XVXDOO\ KDYH D KLJKHU VFKRODVWLF DFKLHYHPHQW OHYHO WKDQ GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV 7KLV IDFWRU KDV EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKH GHDI FKLOGUHQ DUH LPPHGLDWHO\ JLYHQ VRPH IRUP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP %HOOXJL t )LVFKHU &XWWLQJ t .DYDQDJK .DQQDSHOO 6WRNRH 9HUQRQ t .RK f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n QLILFDQFH

PAGE 110

7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI SRVVLEOH UHDVRQV ZK\ RWKHU HWLRORJLHV DUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH PRGHOV RU GR QRW DSSHDU DV VLJQLILFDQW DV SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK ZRXOG VXJJHVWf 7KHUH ZHUH RQO\ VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH GLFKRWRPRXVFRPSDULVRQ RI HDFK W\SH RI HWLRORJ\ DJDLQVW DOO RI WKH RWKHU HWLRORJLHV PD\ KDYH FDXVHG D OHYHOOLQJ HIIHFW 2U SHUKDSV WKHUH ZDV VRPHZKDW RI DQ RYHUODS ZLWK RQH OHYHO RI HWLRORJ\ DQG RWKHU YDULn DEOHV LQ WKH VWXG\ )RU H[DPSOH WKH DJH RI OHDUQLQJ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ PLJKW EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KHUHGLW\ DV ZHOO DV RWKHU YDULDEOHV VXFK DV WKH QXPEHU RI KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG LQ WKH KRPH DQGRU WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ )LQDOO\ RQH RI WKH FULWHULD RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WKDW WKHUH EH QR KDQGLFDS RWKHU WKDQ GHDIQHVV 7KHUHIRUH VXEMHFWV ZLWK RWKHU b KDQGLFDSV RI HWLRORJLHV NQRZQ IRU DVVRFLDWHG DQRPDOLHV DV LQ UXEHOOD ZKLFK PLJKW DIIHFW SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH DXWRPDWLFDOO\ HOLPLQDWHG IURP WKLV VWXG\ $JH RI /HDUQLQJ )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ 7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO DW WKH OHYHO 7KLV UHVXOW VXSSRUWV RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR KDYH UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH HIIHFWLYQHVV RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ LV UHODWHG WR WKH DJH DW ZKLFK LW LV LQWURGXFHG +RHPDQQ 4XLJOH\ f 7KH DJH UDQJH IRU WKHVH VXEMHFWV ZDV ELUWK WR DJH ZLWK D PHDQ RI G% /RVV 7KH G% ORVV LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH PRGHOV IRU *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 VFRUHV 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFKHUV DQG FODVVURRP WHDFKHUV KDYH GLVFRYHUHG WKDW WKLV YDULDEOH KDV QR LQIOXHQFH RQ WKH OLQJXLVWLF DQG VFKRODVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI GHDI DQG KDUGRIKHDULQJ VWXn GHQWV $QGHUVRQ 6FKROHV HW DO LQ SUHVVf

PAGE 111

6XUSULVLQJO\ G% ORVV ZDV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ WKH )& PRGHO DW WKH OHYHO 7R WKLV LQYHVWLJDWRUfV NQRZOHGJH G% ORVV KDV QRW EHHQ LQFOXGHG DV D YDULDEOH LQ $0(6/$1 FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VWXGLHV 7KH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZLWK KLJK )& UDWLQJV > DYHUDJHf WR YHU\ JRRGf@ KDG Df D YDULHW\ RI HWLRORJLHV Ef D ZLGH UDQJH RI G% ORVV DQG Ff D YDULHW\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SUHIHUHQFH VW\OHV VLJQV ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ JHVWXUHV DFFRPSDQLHG ZLWK RU ZLWKRXW VSHHFKf $OO RI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG D UHDGLQJ OHYHO RI RU KLJKHU KRZHYHU IRXU VXEn MHFWV ZLWK DQ )& UDWLQJ ORZHU WKDQ DOVR KDG UHDGLQJ VFRUHV KLJKHU WKDQ 7KLV LV DQ LQWULJXLQJ ILQGLQJ ZKLFK FDQ HDVLO\ EH IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ IXWXUH $0(6/$1 FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VWXGLHV $JH RI WKH 6XEMHFWV 7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW f IRU WKH 0DQXDO %77 PRGHO &RQVLGHULQJ WKH QDUURZ DJH UDQJH DQG PHGLDQ DJH RI WKH VXEn MHFWV DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\f WKLV ZDV D UDWKHU VXUSULVLQJ ILQGLQJ ,W ZRXOG EH H[SHFWHG DV LQ &RRSHUIV f VXEMHFWV RI DJHV WKDW DJH ZRXOG EH LPSRUWDQW LI RQO\ IRU WKH UHDVRQ WKDW WKH GHDI DUH JURVVO\ GHOD\HG LQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI VRPH UDWKHU HOHPHQWDU\ VWUXFWXUHV +RZHYHU ZLWK WKH ROGHU VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ VRPH K\n SRWKHVLV RWKHU WKDQ PHUH GHOD\ VKRXOG EH HQWHUWDLQHG IRU WKH LQIHULRU SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKHVH GHDI VWXGHQWV 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH IDFW WKDW DJH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKHVH VWXGHQWV IRU WKLV SDUWLFXODU WDVN LV SX]]OLQJ ,W PD\ EH WKDW D GLIIHUHQFH RI WZR \HDUV FRXOG DIIHFW WKH VXEMHFWfV DELOLW\ WR FRQFHQWUDWH RYHU DQ H[WHQGHG SHULRG RI WLPH RQ WKH YLGHR WDSH SUHVHQWDWLRQ 2U LW PD\ EH WKDW WKHUH LV D SHDN LQ SHUIRUPDQFH IRU WKH FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI PRWRU YLVXDO DQG OLQJXLVWLF VNLOOV WKDW GRHV

PAGE 112

QRW GHYHORS RU LV VWLOO LQ WKH SURFHVV RI GHYHORSLQJ GXULQJ WKLV DJH VSDQ )LUVW /DQJXDJH LQ WKH +RPH 7KHUH ZHUH WKUHH OHYHOV IRU WKLV YDULDEOH 7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKH VWXGHQWV f UHSRUWHG (QJOLVK DV WKH ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG VLJQ DQG VWXGHQW UHSRUWHG D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH DERYH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHPV 3HUVRQV DW +RPH :KR &DQ )LQJHU 6SHOO DQGRU 6LJQ 7KHUH ZHUH WKUHH OHYHOV IRU WKH DERYH YDULDEOH 6RPH PDQXDO FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ ZDV UHSRUWHG E\ VWXGHQWV VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG QR PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG WKDW PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZDV XVHG IUHTXHQWO\ DW KRPH 2WKHU +HDULQJ ,PSDLUHG )DPLO\ 0HPEHUV 6HYHQ VWXGHQWV UHSRUWHG RWKHU IDPLO\ PHPEHUV VLEOLQJV DQG SDUHQWVf ZKR ZHUH DOVR KHDULQJ LPSDLUHG 7KHVH ODVW WKUHH YDULDEOHV IDLOHG WR EH RI DQ\ VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKH *UDSKLF %77 0DQXDO %77 RU )& PHDVXUHV 7KLV ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQFH FRXOG EH FDXVHG E\ WKH GLFKRWRPRXVFRPSDULVRQ IRUPDW RI WKUHH OHYHOV IRU WKH YDULDEOHV ILUVW ODQJXDJH LQ WKH KRPH DQG SHUVRQV DW KRPH ZKR FDQ ILQJHU VSHOO RU VLJQ +RZHYHU WKH YDULDEOH RI RWKHU KHDULQJ LPn SDLUHG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZKLFK PLJKW KDYH KDG VRPH RYHUODS ZLWK WKH YDULDEOH HWLRORJ\KHUHGLW\ ZDV DQDO\]HG RQ D \HVQR IRUPDW 6R DSn SDUHQWO\ WKH DQDO\VLV FDQQRW GHILQLWHO\ EH DVVXPHG WR FDXVH D ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKHVH YDULDEOHV ,W LV SHUKDSV PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW WKHLU ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQFH IRU KRPH HQYLURQPHQW DQG IDPLO\ PHPEHUV PD\ EH D

PAGE 113

UHVXOW RI WKH VXEMHFWV WKHPVHOYHV LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG HQYLURQPHQW RI HVH ZHUH ROGHU ZKHUH HYHU\RQH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH ILQJHU VSHOOHG DQG VLJQHG 7KHUHIRUH WKH VFKRRO DQG SHHU JURXS IRU WKHVH VXEMHFWV FRXOG FRXQWHUDFW WKH HIIHFW RI WKH IDPLO\ 7KHVH YDULDEOHV PLJKW YHU\ ZHOO EH VLJQLILFDQW LI WKH\ ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ D VLPLODU VWXG\ ZLWK PXFK \RXQJHU VXEMHFWV LQ D GLIIHUHQW HQYLURQPHQW 1XPEHU RI
PAGE 114

PRGHOV 7KHUH LV QR VWXG\ WR WKLV LQYHVWLJDWRUrV NQRZOHGJH ZKHUH UDFH DQG WKH OLQJXLVWLF DELOLW\ RI WKH GHDI KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH FRUUHODWHG 7KH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH IHPDOH VXEMHFWV RI WKLV VWXG\ XQOLNH WKDW RI &RRSHUnV f ROGHU GHDI IHPDOHV FRX@G QRW EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP WKH PDOHVn SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV UHVXOW FRXOG EH DWWULEXWHG WR D QXPEHU RI YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH VPDOOHU QXPEHU DQG QDUURZHU DJH UDQJH IRU IHPDOH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK ,W KDV EHHQ GRFXPHQWHG WKDW GHDI FKLOGUHQ RI GHDI SDUHQWV KDYH JUHDWHU VFKRODVWLF DFKLHYHPHQW WKDQ WKHLU GHDI SHHUV RI KHDULQJ SDUHQWV KRZHYHU WKLV VWXG\ DQG RWKHU UHVHDUFK .DQQDSHOO f KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKLV LQLWLDO DGYDQWDJH PLJKW QRW FRQWLQXH IRU VOLJKWO\ PRUH VRn SKLVWLFDWHG V\QWDFWLF DQG PRUSKRORJLFDO VWUXFWXUHV 7KHUH PD\ EH D SRLQW ZKHUH DELOLW\ IRU PRUH DGYDQFHG OLQJXLVWLF LWHPV QR ORQJHU JLYHV WKH GHDI FKLOG RI GHDI SDUHQWV DQ DGYDQWDJH IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WUDGLWLRQDO (QJOLVK VWUXFWXUH 7KHUHIRUH LW ZRXOG EH RI LQWHUHVW WR JLYH WKH *UDSKLF DQG 0DQXDO %77 WR \RXQJHU DJH JURXSV VR WKDW D SRVVLEOH SRLQW PD\ EH HVWDEOLVKHG ZKHUH WKHVH VXEMHFWV SHUIRUP DW HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH OHYHO DV WKH ROGHU VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH *UDPPDWLF &ORVXUH VXEWHVW RI WKH 73 $ ZKLFK KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR FRUUHODWH KLJKO\ ZLWK WKH %77 XVHV UHDO UDWKHU WKDQ QRQVHQVH ZRUGV DQG WKHUHIRUH PRVW FKLOGUHQ SHUIRUP EHWWHU RQ WKLV VXEWHVW WKDQ RQ D %HUNRW\SH WHVW 6LQFH WKH GHDI DUH VKRZQ WR KDYH GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK PDQ\ DEVWUDFW IRUPVf§DV LQ QRQVHQVH ZRUGVf§LW ZRXOG EH RI LQWHUHVW WR VHH WKH UHVXOWV

PAGE 115

HVSHFLDOO\ RQ GHULYHG ZRUGVf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nV PHPRU\ IRU SURVH 0RGHOV RWKHU WKDQ WKH RQH XWLOL]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ FRXOG EH HPSOR\HG DQG UHVXOWV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKRVH IRXQG IRU WKH KHDULQJ SRSXODWLRQ ,Q DOO $0(6/$1 FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WDVNV LW ZRXOG EH HDV\ DQG SHUKDSV LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKH VXEMHFWnV G% ORVV LQ WKH EHWWHU HDU ,I HQRXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ ZHUH JDWKHUHG LW ZRXOG EH SRVVLEOH WR VHH LI WKHUH LV DQ\ YDOLG FRUUHODWLRQ RI WKLV YDULDEOH DQG $0(6/$1 FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DV ZDV IRXQG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU /DQJXDJH ,QWHUYHQWLRQ $ SRVVLEOH LQGLFDWLRQ IRU FODVVURRP LQVWUXFWLRQ ZRXOG EH WKH VLn PXOWDQHRXV SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI RUDO VLJQHG (QJOLVK DQG JUDSKLF VWLPXOL 1DWXUDOO\ WKH VLPXOWDQHRXV JUDSKLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZRXOG UHTXLUH DQ HOHFn WURQLF GHYLFH FDSDEOH RI UHSUHVHQWLQJ ZRUGV DQG VHQWHQFHV WR WKH FODVV

PAGE 116

6XFK DQ HQWLUHO\ WRWDO DSSURDFK ZRXOG KRSHIXOO\ KHOS HOLPLQDWH DPELJXLWLHV DQG ORVW FOXHV GXH WR WKH IOHHWLQJ QDWXUH RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK KHOS HOLPLQDWH DQ\ FURVVRYHU LQWHUIHUHQFHV RI PDQXDO SUHVHQWDn WLRQV EDVHG RQ (QJOLVK V\QWD[ DQG WKH $0(6/$1 FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP XWLOL]H WKH YLVXDO PHGLXP IRU PD[LPXP FRQFHSW IRUPDWLRQ 3HULRGLF UHDVVHVVPHQW IRU VSHFLILF PRUSKRORJLFDO DQG V\QWDFWLFDO VWUXFWXUHV ZRXOG KRSHIXOO\ SUHFLVHO\ GHILQH GHYLDQW DUHDV JLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ DV WR W\SHV RI HUURUV DQG WKXV SUHVHQW HYLn GHQFH DQG LQVLJKW IRU SRVVLEOH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO IRUPDW $Q HPSKDVLV RQ WKH SRVLWLYH DVSHFWV RI ELOLQJXDO ODQJXDJH PLJKW EH H[WUHPHO\ KHOSIXO )RU H[DPSOH WKH VWXGHQWV FRXOG EH FDSDEOH RI SHUIRUPLQJ WKH VDPH WDVN XQGHU WZR VHSDUDWH FRQGLWLRQVf§$0(6/$1 DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK 7KLV ZRXOG LQ HIIHFW PDNH WKH VWXGHQW ELOLQJXDO DQG PRUH DZDUH RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ ZULWWHQ (QJOLVK DQG $0(6/$1

PAGE 117

$33(1',; $ 68%-(&7 352),/(

PAGE 118

7KHUH ZHUH VXEMHFWV RI ZKRP WKHUH ZHUH PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV 2I WKH PDOHV ZHUH ZKLWH DQG ZHUH EODFN 7KHUH ZHUH ZKLWH DQG EODFN IHPDOHV 9$5,$%/(6 G% /RVV f 'HDIQHVV ELUWK SUHOLQJXDO 3HUIRUPDQFH ,4 f 5HDGLQJ /HYHO f /DQJXDJH LQ WKH +RPH (QJOLVK 6LJQV DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ (QJOLVK VLJQV DQG ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ $JH f )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ 7HVW b b FRUUHFW f

PAGE 119

$33(1',; % ),1*(5 63(//,1* 7(67 678'(17 ,16758&7,216 35272&2/ ,16758&7,216 $1' 6&25,1* 6<67(0

PAGE 120

),1*(5 63(//,1* 7(67 6WXGHQW *UDGH 'DWH RI %LUWK L %2; 7RWDO 6FRUH 0$1 LW +286( )(1&( LW 75(( LW 021.(< LWO &83 ([DPLQHU %$6.(7 'DWH &/2:1 %$//221 LL ($7,1* 38//,1* 67$1',1* 5,',1* :$6+,1* $48$5,80 685) &/(5. /,48,' ,167580(176 +$5%25 )851,785(

PAGE 121

@ ),1*(5 63(//,1* 7(67 FRQWLQXHG /2&.(7 $ $ 7+(5020(7(5 $ 3+212*5$3+ $ ):.,* $ 7/8= $ '%5$, $ *,7:/ $ +37* $ $ 82:$

PAGE 122

678'(17 ,16758&7,216 ZLOO VKRZ \RX VRPH SLFWXUHV DQG \RX ZLOO ILQJHU VSHOO WKH QDPH 6RPH RI WKHVH SLFWXUHV DUH YHU\ IXQQ\ ,I \RX GR QRW NQRZ WKH QDPH ZLOO VKRZ \RX WKH ZULWWHQ QDPH DQG \RX ZLOO ILQJHU VSHOO WKLV QDPH WR PH

PAGE 123

35272&2/ ,16758&7,216 7KH VXEMHFW LV JLYHQ KLV LQVWUXFWLRQV LQ ERWK ZULWWHQ DQG VLJQHG (QJOLVK IRUP 8VH LWHP QR DV D WHVW LWHP $OVR VKRZ WKH ZULWWHQ ZRUG ER[ VR WKDW KH PD\ NQRZ ZKDW WR H[SHFW ZKHQ KH LV XQDEOH WR FRUn UHFWO\ QDPH WKH SLFWXUH )RU WKH QRQVHQVH SLFWXUHV KH PXVW DOZD\V EH VKRZQ WKH QDPHf 'R QRW SHQDOL]H LI WKH VXEMHFW JLYHV DQ LQDSSURSULDWH UHVSRQVH DV LQ ER\ IRU WKH GHVLUHG ZRUG VWDQGLQJ
PAGE 124

6&25,1* 6<67(0 6FRULQJ LV RQ D SRLQW VFDOH RI SURILFLHQF\ ZLWK RQO\ QXPEHUV DQG DV XOWLPDWHO\ FRQVLGHUHG FRUUHFW IOXHQW VPRRWK FRUUHFW IORZ RI OHWWHUV ZLWK QR DSSDUHQW GLI ILFXOW\ ODERUHG KHVLWDQW \HW FRUUHFW IORZ RI OHWWHUV DQGRU VHOIn FRUUHFWLRQV IOXHQW VPRRWK IORZ ZLWK RQO\ OHWWHU LQFRUUHFW H[SUHVVLYH GLIILFXOW\ DQGRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQHKDOI RI WKH OHWWHUV LQDSSURSULDWHO\ XVHG RQO\ OHWWHU RI WKH WHVW ZRUG XVHG FRUUHFWO\ ,I DQ\ VWXGHQW VFRUHV EHORZ D RQ DQ\ RI WKH LWHPV WKHQ WKH WHVW PD\ EH GLVFRQWLQXHG DW WKDW SRLQW DQG KH PD\ QR ORQJHU EH FRQn VLGHUHG DV DQ DSSURSULDWH VXEMHFW IRU WKLV VWXG\ 3DVVLQJ FULWHULD LV D WRWDO WHVW VFRUH RI b RU DERYH

PAGE 125

$33(1',; & 7(67 (;$03/(6 ,16758&7,216 $1' $16:(5 6+((7

PAGE 126

7(67 (;$03/(6 3/$7( ,,, 7+,6 ,6 $ 1$' :+2 .12:6 +2: 72 7520" +( ,6 75200,1* +( ',' 7+( 6$0( 7+,1* <(67(5'$< :+$7 ',' +( '2 <(67(5'$<" <(67(5'$< +( %HUU\ S 3/$7( ;,; 7+,6 ,6 $ 7$66 :+2 .12:6 +2: 72 *,==/(" +( ,6 *,==/,1* +( '2(6 ,7 (9(5<'$< (9(5<'$< +( HUU\

PAGE 127

,16758&7,216 7KH WHDFKHU VD\V WR WKH FKLOG ZDQW WR VKRZ \RX VRPH IXQQ\ SLFWXUHV ZLOO WHOO \RX VRPHWKLQJ DERXW HDFK SLFWXUH DQG WKHQ ZDQW \RX WR KHOS PH E\ ILQLVKLQJ WKH ODVW VHQWHQFH 7KLV LV WKH ZD\ ZH SOD\ WKH JDPH %HUU\ S f 'HPRQVWUDWH ZLWK 3ODWHV DQG ,,f

PAGE 128

$16:(5 6+((7 1DPH 3UHVHQWDWLRQ RUGHU +U RI WHVWLQJ :5,77(1 35(6(17$7,21 9,68$/ 35(6(17$7,21 3ODWHV 3ODWHV , LL ,, ,,, ,,, ,9 ,9 9 9 9, &' /9, f f 9,, 9,, 9,,, 9,,, ,; ,; ; ; ;, ;, ;,, ;,, ;,,, ;,,, ;,9 ;,9 ;9 ;9 ;9, ;9, ;9,, ;9,, ;9,,, ;9,,, ;,; ;,; ;; ;; ;;, f f ;;, f f 0 f ‘ } } A

PAGE 129

$16:(5 6+((7 FRQWLQXHG :5,77(1 35(6(17$7,21 9,68$/ 35(6(17$7,21 3ODWHV 3ODWHV ;;,, ;;,, ;;,,, Lf f ;;,,, Lf f ;;,9 Lf f ;;,9 Lf f ;;9 Lf f ;;9 Lf f ;;9, ;;9, ;;9,, Lf f ;;9,, Lf f ;;9,,, Lf ;;9,,, Lf ;;,; Lf f ;;,; Lf f ;;; Lf f ;;; Lf f

PAGE 130

$33(1',; 6,*16 5(9,(:(' $1' $'',7,21$/ ,16758&7,216

PAGE 131

6,*16 5(9,(:(' WKHUH DQRWKHU NQRZV VDPH WKLQJ \HVWHUGD\ KRXVH OLYHV ZKDW WKLV KH GR GLG WKH

PAGE 132

$'',7,21$/ ,16758&7,216 ZLOO VKRZ \RX D ILOP 0DQ\ RI WKH ZRUGV DQG SLFWXUHV DUH IXQQ\
PAGE 133

$33(1',; ( ,16758&7,216 $1' 6725< 3$5$*5$3+

PAGE 134

,16758&7,216 ZLOO JLYH \RX VRPHWKLQJ WR UHDG 5HDG LW 7DNH \RXU WLPH $IWHUZDUGV ZLOO WDNH WKH SDUDJUDSK DZD\
PAGE 135

6725< 3$5$*5$3+ )RUP $ $LUSODQH SLORWV KDYH PDQ\ LPSRUWDQW MREV 7KH\ IO\ SDVVHQJHUV IUHLJKW DQG PDLO IURP RQH FLW\ WR DQRWKHU 6RPHWLPHV WKH\ PDNH GDQJHUn RXV UHVFXHV LQ ODQG DQG VHD DFFLGHQWV DQG GURS IRRG ZKHUH SHRSOH RU KHUGV DUH VWDUYLQJ 7KH\ EULQJ VWUDQJH DQLPDOV IURP GHQVH MXQJOHV WR RXU ]RRV 7KH\ DOVR VHUYH DV WUDIILF SROLFH DQG VSRW VSHHGLQJ FDUV RQ KLJKZD\V *UD\ S f

PAGE 136

$33(1',; ) ,16758&7,216 ,16758&7,216 )25 6(&21' 9,(:,1* $1' )81&7,21$/ &20081,&$7,21 (9$/8$7,21 6+((7

PAGE 137

,16758&7,216
PAGE 138

,16758&7,216 FRQWLQXHG 3DUW & )LQJHU 6SHOOLQJ DQG 6LJQ 5DWLRV &LUFOH WKH QXPEHU ZKLFK PRVW DSWO\ GHVFULEHV WKH VWXGHQWnV SDUWLFX ODU VW\OH RI FRPPXQLFDWLQJ PRVW ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ PRUH ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ WKDQ VLJQLQJ HTXDO DPRXQWV RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ DQG VLJQLQJ PRUH VLJQLQJ WKDQ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ PRVWO\ VLJQLQJ 3OHDVH FLUFOH WKH QXPEHU ZKLFK EHVW GHVFULEHV \RXU RZQ SDUWLFXODU NQRZn OHGJH RI WKH VWXGHQW

PAGE 139

,16758&7,216 )25 6(&21' 9,(:,1*
PAGE 140

)81&7,21$/ &20081,&$7,21 (9$/8$7,21 6+((7 6WXGHQW 1R $ 48$/,7< 2) &219(<$1&( )25 7+( *(1(5$/ &21&(37 YHU\ SRRU SRRU DYHUDJH JRRG YHU\ JRRG % ,7(0 $1$/<6,6 $LUSODQH SLORWV KDYH PDQ\ MREV WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ EHWZHHQ FLWLHV RI SHRSOH RI IUHLJKW RI PDLO UHVFXHV DW ODQG DW VHD GURSSLQJ IRRG WR KXQJU\ SHRSOH WR KXQJU\ DQLPDOV EULQJLQJ DQLPDOV WR ]RRV IURP WKH MXQJOHV DFW DV WUDIILF SROLFH VSRW VSHHGLQJ FDUV .(< HQWLUH IDFW SUHVHQWHG IDFW SDUn WLDOO\ SUHVHQWHG IDFW RPLWWHG RQ WKH KLJKZD\

PAGE 141

)81&7,21$/ &20081,&$7,21 (9$/8$7,21 6+((7 FRQWLQXHG & ),1*(5 63(//,1* $1' 6,*1,1* 5$7,26 PRVWO\ ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ PRUH ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ WKDQ VLJQLQJ QHDUO\ HTXDO DPRXQWV RI ILQJHU VSHOOLQJ WKDQ VLJQLQJ PRUH VLJQLQJ WKDQ VSHOOLQJ PRVWO\ VLJQLQJ +RZ ZHOO GR \RX NQRZ WKLV VWXGHQW" QRW DW DOO YHU\ ZHOO

PAGE 142

%,%/,2*5$3+< $OWHUPDQ $ 7 /DQJXDJH DQG WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQ ZLWK HDUO\ SURn IRXQG GHDIQHVV $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI $QGHUVRQ 0 : 3V\FKROLQJXLVWLF DELOLWLHV DQG DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW RI KDUG RI KHDULQJ VWXGHQWV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO % 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f $QLVIHOG 0 t 7XFNHU 5 (QJOLVK SOXUDOL]DWLRQ UXOHV RI VL[\HDU ROG FKLOGUHQ &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW B $QNHQ 5 t +ROPHV : 8VH RI DGDSWHG FODVVLFV LQ D UHDGLQJ SURJUDP IRU GHDI VWXGHQWV $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI %HOOXJL 8 t )LVFKHU 6 $ FRPSDULVRQ RI VLJQ ODQJXDJH DQG VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH &RJQLWLRQ %HOOXJL 8 t .OLPD ( 7KH VLJQV RI ODQJXDJH &DPEULGJH 0DVV +DUYDUG 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV LQ SUHVV %HUNR 7KH FKLOGfV OHDUQLQJ RI (QJOLVK PRUSKRORJ\ :RUG %HUU\ 0 ) %HUU\7DOERWW ODQJXDJH WHVWV &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI JUDPPDU 3LQHFUHVW 5RDG 5RFNIRUG ,OO %ODQWRQ 5 / 1XQQDOO\ & t 2GRP 3 % *UDSKHPLF SKRQHWLF DQG DVVRFLDWLYH IDFWRUV LQ WKH YHUEDO EHKDYLRU RI GHDI DQG KHDUn LQJ VXEMHFWV -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 'LVRUGHUV %RGH / &RPPXQLFDWLRQ RI DJHQW REMHFW DQG LQGLUHFW REMHFW LQ VLJQHG DQG VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH 3HUFHSWXDO 0RWRU 6NLOOV B %UDQQRQ % -U /LQJXLVWLF ZRUG FODVV LQ WKH VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH RI QRUPDO KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK @$ %UDQQRQ % -U t 0XUU\ 7 7KH VSRNHQ V\QWD[ RI QRUPDO KDUGRI KHDULQJ DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5H VHDUFK

PAGE 143

%UXQLQJ / t .LQW] % / &RPSXWDWLRQDO KDQGERRN RI VWDWLVWLFV *OHQYLHZ ,OO 6FRWW )RUHVPDQ t &RPSDQ\ &ODUN + + t &ODUN ( 9 &KDSWHU &RPSUHKHQVLRQ ,Q .DJDQ *HQHUDO (Gf 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG ODQJXDJH $Q ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR SV\FKRn OLQJXLVWLFV 1HZ
PAGE 144

*RRGQRZr 3UREOHPV LQ UHVHDUFK RQ FXOWXUH DQG WKRXJKW ,Q (ONLQJ t )ODYHOOH (GVf 6WXGLHV LQ FRJQLWLYH GHYHORSPHQW 1HZ
PAGE 145

0RUNRYLQ % /DQJXDJH LQ WKH JHQHUDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SUHVFKRRO GHDI FKLOG $ UHYLHZ RI UHVHDUFK LQ WKH 6RYLHW 8QLRQ $6+$ 0RUWRQ 6XPPDU\ RI D UHSRUW RQ HGXFDWLRQ RI WKH GHDI VXEPLWWHG WR WKH VHFUHWDU\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK (GXFDWLRQ DQG :HOIDUH $6+$ @B 0\NOHEXVW + 5 7KH SV\FKRORJ\ RI GHDIQHVV 1HZ
PAGE 146

4XLJOH\ 6 3 :LOEXU 5 % 0RQWDQHOOL 6 4XHVWLRQ IRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH ODQJXDJH RI GHDI VWXGHQWV -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK 5DYLY 6 6KDUDQ 6 t 6WUDXVV 6 ,QWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ LQ GLIIHUHQW HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQWV -RXUQDO RI &RPn PXQLFDWLRQ 'LVRUGHUV 5XVVHOO : 4XLJOH\ 6 3 t 3RZHU /LQJXLVWLFV DQG GHDI FKLOGUHQ 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO V\QWD[ DQG LWV DSSOLFDWLRQV :DVKLQJn WRQ & $OH[DQGHU *UDKDP %HOO $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU WKH 'HDI 6DUDFKDQ'HLO\ $ % t /RYH 5 8QGHUO\LQJ JUDPPDWLFDO UXOH VWUXFn WXUH LQ WKH GHDI -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK 6FKHLQ 'HDI VWXGHQWV ZLWK RWKHU GLVDELOLWLHV $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI 6FKOHVLQJHU 0 7KH JUDPPDU RI VLJQ ODQJXDJH DQG WKH SUREOHPV RI ODQJXDJH XQLYHUVDOV ,Q 0RUWRQ (Gf %LRORJLFDO DQG VRFLDO IDFWRUV LQ SV\FKROLQJXLVWLFV /RQGRQ /RJRV 3UHVV 6FKROHV 5 &RKHQ 0 t %UXPILHOG 6 6RPH SRVVLEOH FDXVHV RI V\QWDFWLF GHILFLWV LQ WKH FRQJHQLWDOO\ GHDI (QJOLVK XVHU $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI LQ SUHVV 6FKROHV 5 7DQLV & $QGHUVRQ 0 $ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI GRXEOHn REMHFW FRQVWUXFWLRQV E\ KDUGRIKHDULQJ VXEMHFWV /HNWRV 6HUYLFH $ XVHUnV JXLGH WR WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV V\VWHP 5DOHLJK 1 & 6WXGHQW 6XSSO\ 6WRUHV 1RUWK &DUROLQD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 6KULQHU 7 + t 0LQHU / 0RUSKRORJLFDO VWUXFWXUHV LQ WKH ODQJXDJH RI GLVDGYDQWDJHG DQG DGYDQWDJHG FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK 6LOYHUPDQ 6 5 7KH HGXFDWLRQ RI GHDI FKLOGUHQ ,Q / ( 7UDYLV (Gf +DQGERRN RI VSHHFK SDWKRORJ\ DQG DXGLRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 147

7ZHQH\ 5 t +RHPDQQ + : 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI VHPDQWLF DVVRFLDWLRQV LQ SURIRXQGO\ GHDI FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5H VHDUFK 7ZHQH\ 5 +RHPDQQ + : t $QGUHZV & ( 6HPDQWLF RUJDQL]DWLRQ LQ GHDI DQG KHDULQJ VXEMHFWV -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKROLQJXLVWLF 5Hn VHDUFK B 9HUQRQ 0 &XUUHQW HWLRORJLFDO IDFWRUV LQ GHDIQHVV $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI 9HUQRQ 0 t .RK 6 (IIHFWV RI RUDO SUHVFKRRO FRPSDUHG WR HDUO\ PDQXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ RQ HGXFDWLRQ DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ GHDI FKLOn GUHQ $PHULFDQ $QQDOV RI WKH 'HDI 9RJHO 6 $ 0RUSKRORJLFDO DELOLW\ LQ QRUPDO DQG G\VOH[LF FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI /HDUQLQJ 'LVDELOLWLHV .f! :LOEXU 5 % 4XLJOH\ 6 t 0RQWDQHOOL 6 &RQMRLQHG VWUXFWXUHV LQ WKH ODQJXDJH RI GHDI VWXGHQWV -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK :LOFR[ t 7RELQ + /LQJXLVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI KDUGRIKHDULQJ DQG QRUPDOKHDULQJ FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 5HVHDUFK M

PAGE 148

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 6KDQQRQ 0DXUHHQ %UXPILHOG ZDV ERUQ LQ 1HZ 2UOHDQV /RXLVLDQD ZKHUH VKH OLYHG ZLWK KHU SDUHQWV DQG \RXQJHU EURWKHU DQG VLVWHUf§)UHG DQG 0DU\ .DWKOHHQ .DNLf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n OHJH ZKHUH VKH WDXJKW FRXUVHV LQ DQDWRP\ DQG SK\VLRORJ\ RI WKH VSHHFK DQG KHDULQJ PHFKDQLVP DQG WKH SV\FKRORJ\ RI GHDIQHVV ,Q 6HSWHPEHU VKH EHJDQ KHU GRFWRUDO SURJUDP DW WKH 8QLn YHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ZKHUH KHU DUHD RI PDMRU LQWHUHVW LQ VSHHFK SDWKRORJ\ ZDV ODQJXDJH GLVRUGHUV LQ GHDI DQG DSKDVLF SRSXODWLRQV 7KLV ZDV FRPn SOHPHQWHG E\ D VSOLW PLQRU LQ OLQJXLVWLFV DQG SV\FKRORJ\

PAGE 149

0V %UXPILHOG KDV UHFHLYHG WKH &HUWLILFDWH RI &OLQLFDO &RPSHWHQFH LQ 6SHHFK 3DWKRORJ\ IURP WKH $PHULFDQ 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ $VVRFLDWLRQ /LFHQVH LQ 6SHHFK 3DWKRORJ\ IURP WKH 6WDWH RI /RXLVLDQD DQG LV FHUWLILHG E\ WKH &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ RI WKH 'HDI 6KH DOVR KROGV WHDFKLQJ FHUWLn ILFDWHV IRU WKH VWDWHV RI /RXLVLDQD DQG 3HQQV\OYDQLD r

PAGE 150

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nV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ ,U $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 7KRPDV % $EERWW 3URIHVVRU RI 6SHHFK

PAGE 151

, FHUWLI\ WKDW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWn PHQW RI 6SHHFK LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ -XQH 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 152

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
OF THE DEAF
By
SHANNON MAUREEN BRUMFIELD
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1978

Copyright by
Shannon Maureen Brumfield
1978

To my very special friends,
Dr. and Mrs. Fred 0. Brumfield

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express appreciation to all members of my super¬
visory committee for their guidance, suggestions, and support which
made the completion of this study possible. A very special thank you
to my chairman in absentia, Dr. Edward C. Hutchinson, for academic and
moral support during my graduate studies and his thorough guidance of
this study toward its completion. (I would also like to thank Marilin,
his wife, who on several occasions acted as courier in delivering cor¬
respondence between Gainesville and North Carolina.) In addition to
the time and effort he so willingly gave to this project, I would like
to thank my cochairman, Dr. Robert J. Scholes, for helping to instill
in me an enthusiasm for research. Appreciation is also extended toward
Dr. Scholes for helping me maintain the necessary momentum to complete
this study with comments such as "I plan to retire when you finish."
I wish to thank Dr. Ira S. Fischler for his contributions and critique
on test design, experimental procedure, and data analysis. His en¬
thusiastic guidance on psychological approaches to memory was invaluable.
Special thanks are extended to the faculty and staff of the
Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, especially to Mr. Joseph P.
Finnegan, Mr. Jerry Prokes, Ms. Pat Westmoreland, Mr. John T. Tiffany,
Mr. Bob Graham, and the entire Jackie Johnson family. I also wish to
thank my panel of raters, Ms. Rose Greenmun, Mr. Edward Grobble,
Ms. Muriel Malloy, Mr. Kenneth D. Randall, and Mr. Robert Thomson.
IV

For their enthusiasm and cooperation I thank the subjects who partici¬
pated in this study.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Marshall Cohen
for his help with the statistical analyses of this study.
I would also like to thank Mr. James W. Flavin, Office of Instruc¬
tional Resources, University of Florida, for his production of the
presentation film and his instructions on the usage of the video equip-
ment and cameras.
Nothing can
express how much I owe my family, friends, and Mitsouki
for their support
toward the successful completion of this venture.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 3
Introduction 3
Theories in Deaf Education 3
Introduction 3
Oral vs. Manual Controversy 4
Current Theories 8
Summary of Philosophies in Deaf Education. ... 10
American Sign Language as an Effective Communication
System 11
Introduction 11
Acquisition of Communication Systems by Normal
and Deaf Children 12
Studies Utilizing Signs for Communication. ... 15
Prose and AMESLAN Communication 16
Summary of American Sign Language as an
Effective Communication System 22
Language Assessment 23
Introduction 23
Cognitive Research 24
Linguistic Research 28
Summary of the Review of Language Assessment . . 39
Morphological Assessment 43
Introduction 43
Rationale for the Use of Nonsense Syllables. . . 43
Morphological Studies of the Deaf 50
Summary of Morphological Assessment 52
Statement of the Problem 54
CHAPTER III: METHOD AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY 56
Introduction 56
Procedures 56
Subjects 56
Finger Spelling Ability 57
Tasks 57
vi

Page
BTT Graphic 58
BTT Manual 58
FC Task 59
Scoring Criterion 60
BTT Graphic and Manual 60
FC Rating 62
Analysis 64
CHAPTER V: RESULTS 69
Introduction 69
Linguistic Performance on Graphic and Manual BTT . . 69
Correlations Among Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and
the Judged Level of FC Proficiency 70
Demographic Data 71
Etiology 71
dB Loss 72
Reading Level 73
Age When Finger Spelling First Acquired 74
Age 74
First Language in the Home 74
Other Hearing Impaired Family Members 75
Persons at Home Who Can Finger Spell and/or Sign 75
Number of Years of Attendance at FSDB 75
IQ 76
Race 76
Sex 76
Summary of Results 76
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 86
Morphological Assessment 86
Introduction 86
Graphic and Manual BTT 86
Discussion 87
Hierarchy of Errors 87
Nature of the Test Format 90
Error Types 92
Correlations Among Graphic BTT, Manual BTT,
and FC Scores 94
Introduction 94
Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC_ Scores 94
Discussion 95
Correlations with Reading and Writing 95
Memory for Prose and Cognitive Implications. . . 96
Demographic Assessment 97
Introduction 97
Significant Variables 98
Discussion 98
Reading Level 98
Etiology 99
vii

Page
Age of Learning Finger Spelling 100
dB Loss 100
Age of Subjects 101
First Language in the Home 102
Persons at Home Who Can Finger Spell and/or Sign 102
Other Hearing Impaired Family Members 102
Number of Years of Attendance at FSDB 103
IQ 103
Race and Sex 103
Implications for Further Research 104
Suggestions for Language Assessment 105
APPENDIX A: SUBJECT PROFILE 108
APPENDIX B: FINGER SPELLING TEST 110
STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS 112
PROTOCOL INSTRUCTIONS 113
SCORING SYSTEM 114
APPENDIX C: TEST EXAMPLES 116
INSTRUCTIONS 117
ANSWER SHEET 118
APPENDIX D: SIGNS REVIEWED 121
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS 122
APPENDIX E: INSTRUCTIONS 124
STORY PARAGRAPH 125
APPENDIX F: INSTRUCTIONS 127
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECOND VIEWING 129
FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION EVALUATION SHEET 130
BIBLIOGRAPHY 132
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 138
viii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
OF THE DEAF
By
Shannon Maureen Brumfield
June 1978
Chairman: Edward C. Hutchinson
Major Department: Speech
Cochairman: Robert J. Scholes
Major Department: Speech
This investigation was conducted to obtain information about two
distinct aspects of the communicative ability of the deaf. The first
research question dealt with the ability and extent to which the deaf
are able to utilize and/or understand the syntax of a natural language
(i.e., English). Previous linguistic experiments conducted in the oral
or graphic mediums had raised a question as to whether low linguistic
scores were the result of true ignorance for a task or difficulty with
the testing medium itself.
The functional communicative effectiveness (FC) of the deaf for
conveying specific information when allowed to utilize the preferred
visual-gestural, American Sign Language (AMESLAN) communication method
was also investigated. The second question was to determine the nature
of the relationship between linguistic scores and judged level of FC
proficiency.
Finally, a demographic study was conducted to determine if lin¬
guistic performance or FC ratings were related to the variables of
ix

etiology, dB loss in the better ear, first language in the home, other
hearing impaired family members, persons at home who can finger spell
and/or sign, age when finger spelling was first acquired, number of
years at Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (FSDB), reading level,
IQ, age, race, and sex.
The Berry-Talbott Language Tests I: Comprehension of Grammar (BTT),
a test of morphology, was administered in two distinct testing situations.
One preserved the traditional testing format of graphic presentation and
response. The other presented the same test stimuli in a video taped,
finger spelling and signed English presentation where the subject finger
spelled the response. A paired difference ^-statistic revealed a signifi¬
cant difference in correct responses in favor of the graphic presentation.
For the FC. rating the subject read a simple paragraph which he re¬
told in his preferred manner of communication. This story was video
taped for later scoring by two groups of judges who were fluent in sign
and finger spelling. Performance was rated on a general quality scale
and on the inclusion of specific main and detail items of the story.
Analysis of the Quality Score showed the deaf students to be slightly
below average in their communicative ability.
Graphic BTT scores and Manual BTT scores, and Graphic BTT scores
and FC ratings were highly correlated at the .01 level. Manual BTT
scores and FC^ ratings were not correlated.
Regression models were developed for prediction of the variance
within the dependent variables Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC as a
function of the demographic data. As substantiated in other investiga¬
tions, reading level was the most significant variable for all three
models.
x

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The process of language acquisition is dependent upon many biologi¬
cal and environmental factors. Among the sensory modalities the auditory
form is of prime importance for normal acquisition to occur. Deprivation
of this modality usually has a disastrous effect on language. Even a
cursory comparison of hearing and deaf children reveals the extremely
limited verbal expression of the children deprived of auditory stimula¬
tion.
In a report to the Committee on the Education of the Deaf, Morton
in 1965 stated, in addition to other information, that
1. The average graduate of a public residential school
for the deaf - the closest we have to generally
available "high schools" for the deaf has, in ef¬
fect, an eighth grade education.
2. Seniors at Gallaudet College, the nation's only
college for the deaf, rank close to the bottom
in performance on the Graduate Record Exam, (p. 108)
This situation has remained relatively unchanged 12 years later.
Anken and Holmes reported in 1977 that even after years of extensive
education with an overwhelming emphasis on language, the linguistic per¬
formance of the average prelingually deaf adolescent has remained ex¬
tremely poor in the areas of reading and written composition.
There have been many hypotheses concerning the poor linguistic
performance by the deaf. Numerous investigations have been conducted
to support these hypotheses and have provided information about factors
1

2
such as etiology, early language stimulation and method of classroom
instruction. Additional research has also been conducted to obtain in¬
formation concerning performance on cognitive tasks, specific linguistic
tasks, pertinent qualities of American Sign Language (AMESLAN), as well
as the ability of the deaf to precisely communicate information utilizing
their own visual-gestural (sign language) system of communication.
The present investigation was conducted to obtain information about
two distinct aspects of the communicative ability of deaf adolescents.
The Berry-Talbott Test of Morphological and Derivational Rules (BTT)
(Berry, 1966) was used to compare linguistic skills for specific mor¬
phological items which were presented in two separate conditions—graphic
presentation and manual presentation. The graphic and manual BTT scores
were then compared.
A measure was obtained of the subject's communicative effective¬
ness, Functional Communication (FC), for conveying specific information
when allowed to utilize his preferred visual-gestural (AMESLAN) communi¬
cation method. This FC score was compared with both BTT scores. Finally
the two BTT scores and the FC scores were compared to the subject's en¬
vironmental, educational, and medical data.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Because some correlation between the performance of the deaf and
the hard-of-hearing has been established, pertinent studies with the
latter group are included in the literature review. A review of theories
in deaf education is located in the first section. The second section
contains theories on the validity of AMESLAN as an effective communica¬
tion system. An examination of the performance by the deaf on language
assessment tasks is the main topic for the third section. Both cogni¬
tive and syntactical tasks and their evaluation procedures are included.
Specific morphological assessments are found in the fourth section.
The rationale and previous usage of the BTT is also reported. Finally
a statement of the problem for this investigation is presented.
Theories in Deaf Education
Introduction
Debates as to the exact format of deaf education have prevailed
over centuries. On one side there are the educators who take some form
of linguistic viewpoint where it is paramount that the child be exposed
to, and hopefully learn, traditional English. These educators are advo¬
cates of some sort of communication system which preserves traditional
English and syntax. Among this group would be found defenders of the
3

4
purely oral school, finger spelling and/or signed English approaches.
(The latter two methodologies are direct mappings of visual clues upon
spoken English.) And among these groups themselves there are disagree¬
ments as to the best methodology for implementing language.
In contrast some educators feel that it is more important for the
deaf to first acquire any form of communication system. (This would not
necessarily preclude learning traditional English at some later age.) The
group that considers AMESLAN to be the primary language of the deaf advo¬
cates this system of deaf education. The obvious example for their ra¬
tionale is the markedly superior communicative ability of deaf children of
deaf parents, who are exposed to an early form of communication as opposed
to the generally inferior communicative abilities of deaf children of hear¬
ing parents, who are usually deprived of such a system. However, this
visual-gestural system has been traditionally, and in many cases still is,
viewed as an inferior communicative system incapable of expressing any¬
thing but very simple concrete needs. For this reason it has been only re¬
cently that researchers have even considered studying the basic properties
and communicative effectiveness of AMESLAN as a language system. Some ini¬
tial experiments support the traditional view (Schlesinger, 1971) whereas
other investigators have found this communication system more sophisticated
than previously thought (Bellugi & Fischer, 1972; Bode, 1974).
An overview of traditional and contemporary philosophies and the en¬
suing controversies in deaf education is included in this section.
Oral vs. Manual Controversy
There is practically total agreement that the education of the deaf
has been lacking and that plans should be made to augment it. It would

5
be rare to find someone who opposed earlier diagnosis of the problem
and immediate amplification and extensive language intervention. There
is, however, some controversy as to the exact manner for implementation
of this training.
The debate of Oralism vs. Manualism is practically as old as deaf
education itself. Very generally the oral group believes that instruc¬
tion should be purely oral and emphasizes amplification, training of
residual hearing, and speech reading. The manual group, for the most
part, also believes that everything previously cited is important; how¬
ever, they also emphasize the addition of visual clues to the speech
code either by finger spelling, signing or both.
Arguments for Oralism are strong and impressive. Most of the
world's population do hear; so it is important that the deaf child be
integrated into this society. Signing of any sort is emphatically
discouraged since it is believed that it will contaminate and even pre¬
vent speech development. Without signs the deaf child is free to develop
in an unhindered manner the more "natural" mode of speech. Signing is
also discouraged for the additional reason that it is believed to be an
inferior language that will only confuse and confine the natural lan¬
guage development of the child because signs are viewed as too inefficient
a method to allow for the subtleties of normal language.
These arguments are very attractive to the hearing parents of deaf
infants. They offer glowing hope that through constant language stimula¬
tion someday their child will overcome his handicap and utilize speech
and language like the hearing population. For a very few children this
is true.

6
Manualism has an early history in the United States. The French
Method (signs) was brought to this country by Edward Gallaudet and
Gallaudet College today conducts instruction using signs. While the
Manualists would not deny the child's need to speak and learn traditional
English,they believe that some sort of visual clue will enhance this
process. They contend that the Oralist's emphasis on speech reading
does not give adequate visual information about the language content.
It has been shown by Alterman (1970) that only 20%-40% of English
phonemes are visible on the lips. Lip movements are transient and quite
fine. They therefore place a great strain on visual proficiency and
memory. Pelson and Prather (1974) found that lip reading performance
deteriorated somewhat with age for both normals and hearing impaired.
The performance of both groups was much better for phrases and sentences
than for isolated words. It is often said that the best lip readers
are the ones who have the best knowledge of grammar, a good vocabulary,
and a good ability to guess at ambiguous content.
Speech may be the natural mode of language acquisition for the
hearing child, but if this process is dependent on an intact auditory
feedback loop as Fry (1966) believed, then in the absence or deficit of
this auditory feedback speech may not be the ideal medium for communica¬
tion by the deaf.
The Manualists are quick to elucidate that today the deaf popula¬
tion differs from the one of 30 years ago. Now almost all of the chil¬
dren are congenitally or prelingually deaf whereas in the 1940's a
little over one-third of the deaf children became so after the acquisi¬
tion of at least some speech and language. Even a little exposure to
language before the onslaught of deafness is of tremendous help in
future language learning.

7
Much of this debate can be related to the heterogeneity of the
deaf population itself. The etiology of deafness is extremely varied.
Therefore it would not be surprising to discover differences in language
abilities with variations in other variables such as IQ, dB loss, educa¬
tional experience, or anything else.
Now, only about 5% of the population become deaf postlingually
as opposed to around 35% in 1940 (Vernon, 1968). Today rubella, when
contracted by the mother during any state of pregnancy, is one of the
most frequent causes of deafness. The effect of this disease is so in¬
sidious that even if the mother should contact such a mild case that she
is unaware of any pathology, it is not unlikely that the baby will have
a congenital hearing defect.
In a little less than one-half of the cases the etiology of deaf¬
ness is unknown. It may exist in isolation but is frequently accompanied
by other disabilities which may be congenital or acquired. There is less
possibility for accompanying anomalies for deaf children with deaf parents
since in these cases the disability is attributed largely to hereditary
factors.
In a large survey Schein (1975) discovered that 30% or more deaf
school children had additional disabilities. It has been noted that four
of the five other etiologies commonly associated with deafness are also
associated with congenital brain damage. The damage in these cases may
be very subtle and masked by the overwhelming variable of deafness. Con¬
sequently, with current methods, it is very difficult to detect and de¬
lineate brain damage (Vernon, 1968).
With such a heterogenous population as the deaf it could be in¬
ferred that a methodology which succeeds with one child may not neces¬
sarily be the most advantageous for another child.

8
Current Theories
At one time the Manualists did not have an adequate reply for the
contention that AMESLAN was a poor and inferior language. At best all
that could be said was that AMESLAN did afford the deaf some medium of
communication. Recent preliminary research has revealed that AMESLAN
is really more sophisticated than previously believed (Bellugi & Fischer,
1972; Cutting & Kavanagh, 1975).
It has also been noted that just as spoken language has certain
phonemes with specific boundaries, signs also possess equivalent restric¬
tions. Signs are a unique combination of three parameters: (a) place,
in relation to body parts, where the sign begins and ends, (b) appearance
of the hand that forms the sign itself, and (c) action of the sign (Kan-
napell, 1974). If any of these parameters are violated then native
signers report seeing the sign as either incorrect, dialectical, or the
equivalent to "slips of the tongue" (Cutting & Kavanagh, 1975). Indeed
it has been observed that the deaf do have their own humor and puns.
There has been much disagreement among the Manualists themselves
as to the best method for implementing the visual clues. Hollis and
Carrier (1975) cited the work of Premack to support the hypothesis that
using a nonspeech mode to implement a set of comprehensive concepts
would make it easier to learn the more functional mode of speech.
Kannapell (1974) thought of AMESLAN as the "mother tongue" and sug¬
gested that current trends in bilingual education be followed in refer¬
ence to the deaf. Gallaudet has begun a remedial English program based
on foreign language teaching principles (Goldberg & Bordman, 1975) .
Conversely, Stokoe (1975) presented some difficulties of incor¬
porating AMESLAN with English inflections as follows:

9
1. A sign may have only 1 meaning in AMESLAN and
several in signed English.
2. Inflections affixed to a sign do not allow
for the irregular English formations for certain
words.
3. Stress is equal and is taught mainly for adverbs;
therefore, the deaf may have no idea that other
derivations can occur as in adjectives. (p. 418)
Others view finger spelling as the ideal visual clue for the deaf
child. Its proponents argue that since it is an exact letter for letter
duplication of spoken English it will give the child an exact knowledge
of his language and preserve traditional grammar. Usually finger spelling
is used for every word that is spoken. However, it may be used, as in
the Soviet Union, for isolated words to help in clarification (Morkovin,
1968).
Hoemann (1974)found that the use of finger spelling did favorably
influence the deaf's ability to label pictures. He did caution that it
must be introduced at the beginning of formal education. When it is first
presented the young child does not recognize a word by spelling out each
letter but by the unique hand configurations which compose a particular
word. Some of the arguments against lip reading can also be levelled,
to some degree at least, against finger spelling. The latter is also
fleeting, visually small and somewhat context specific. At the speed
of conversation the precise letter configuration is not reached before
the movement toward the next letter begins (Fisher & Husa, 1973).
The Oralists' objection that finger spelling hinders the develop¬
ment of traditional speech has not been proven. Most comparisons of
orally and manually educated deaf children revealed no differences be¬
tween the two groups on speech. Lip reading skills were found to cor¬
relate more highly with the amount of residual hearing.

10
Summary of Philosophies in Deaf Education
A review of philosophies in deaf education has indicated the fol¬
lowing:
1. Advocates of Oral and Manual education agree on such issues as
early diagnosis, immediate amplification, and extensive language inter¬
vention.
2. The Oralists emphasize oral instruction, auditory training,
and lip reading.
3. The Manualists agree that all activities in the above item
are important; however, they also believe that additional visual clues
are necessary to aid the deaf's acquisition of language.
4. There has been no evidence that signing or finger spelling
hinders the speech of the deaf.
5. There are disagreements among the Manualists themselves as to
the best method for language intervention:
(a) finger spelling—which spells each word as it is simul¬
taneously spoken
(b) signed English—which is also a direct mapping to the
spoken English except that signs as well as finger spelling are utilized
(c) AMESLAN—which is the unique language of the deaf and does
not have the same properties or syntax of spoken traditional English
(d) English as a second language—which, as an instructional
philosophy, would borrow from current bilingual programs.

11
6. A nonsense test of morphology utilizing a manual (signed
English) as well as the more traditional graphic mediums for item
presentation and response would:
(a) precisely define points of deviancy
(b) give educators of the deaf insight into their present
and future instructional format by providing evidence for possible modi¬
fication.
7. A communicative effectiveness rating (FC) based on the subject's
ability to convey some standard prose in his preferred visual-gestural
(AMESLAN) medium would:
(a) give insight as to the communicative ability level of
the deaf, as well as the effectiveness of AMESLAN itself, to convey
thoughts and ideas
(b) contribute more information in the still relatively un¬
known area of AMESLAN
(c) discern if any correlation on specific linguistic tasks
is related to general communicative effectiveness when utilizing AMESLAN.
American Sign Language as an Effective Communication System
Introduction
In this communicative approach with the deaf the concern is not so
much with the particular morphemes or syntax of traditional languages
(i.e., English, French, Aztec, Japanese, etc.) but rather with the com¬
municative effectiveness of whatever signalling system is being employed.
The signalling systems under scrutiny in this study are those tradition¬
ally utilized by the deaf such as finger spelling, AMESLAN, lip reading,

12
gesturing, and signing. It is known that in natural languages, such as
English, a plethora of ideas—ideas such as causality ("Getting hit by
the bat made John cry.")—and abstract concepts can be adequately com¬
municated. One of the questions most frequently asked about AMESLAN is
that of its communicative effectiveness when compared to the efficiency
of natural (traditional) languages. Is there a communication deficiency
in this particular signing system even when employed by competent signers?
Another question under investigation is whether performance on traditional
linguistic tasks may give some indication as to the general communica¬
tive level of a deaf subject when he is allowed free usage of his own
visual-gestural communication system to convey new information.
Acquisition of Communication Systems by Normal and Deaf Children
Around the babbling stage of 4 or 5 months the deaf child's pro¬
duction begins to differ from the normal (Menyuk, 1969). The hearing
child, reinforced by hearing his utterances, may amuse himself by con¬
stantly repeating nonsense syllables. Naturally the deaf child lacks
this reinforcement. Even before this difference in production is no¬
ticed there existed an auditory perceptual difference in that the hear¬
ing child has been responding to sounds by localization, discrimination
and increasing sensitivity to intonation and rhythm. An ever increasing
lag develops between the deaf and hearing child. While the hearing
child may begin to produce words from 9 to 12 months, this may not occur
for the deaf child until age 3 or 4.
There is some evidence for a critical period for normal language
acquisition between the ages of 2 to 4 years. It is believed by many
that if the opportunity for development is not presented at this optimal

13
time then the child may never achieve adult competence and performance
(Lennenberg, 1966). Unfortunately it is not unusual for language stimu¬
lation for deaf children to begin at the time of formal education which
is usually around the age of 6 or 7. Hoemann (1974)noted that the scho¬
lastic performance of those high school deaf students who had a preschool
language program was significantly better than their peers who were de¬
prived of this experience.
Because the deaf population uses gestures instead of speech, it
was once thought, and in some cases still believed, to be a primitive
system which could only be used for expressing basic needs.
Unfortunately a very primitive gesture system is the only means
of communication for some of the deaf. These people are often deaf chil¬
dren of hearing parents and have not been exposed to other deaf people.
Even though some signs seem to be universal—as in pointing to the mouth
for "hungry" or "food"—this deaf person, for lack of other stimuli,
develops his own idiosyncratic gesture system.
Some deaf individuals may develop a more regulated system—due in
part to their environment. In schools for the deaf it is well known that
the children do in fact sign when the faculty are not watching. Later
if they become affiliated with other members of the deaf community their
signing becomes more regulated in that certain signs are accepted and
used by everyone for a particular word or concept. These people establish
a fairly consistent means of gestural communication.
As Bellugi and Fischer(1972) have noted, there are several features
all sign languages have in common. These consistencies are undoubtedly
due to (a) the mediums employed—hands, space, and body, and (b) the
time involved to make message units shorter but still unambiguous.

14
The above authors found that although it took longer to sign a
particular word than to say it, the time it took to say a sentence and
to sign it was nearly equal. Research so far has yielded the following
adjustments which all signers instinctively utilize: (a) "doing without"
or the exclusion of words which do not hinder the intent of a statement
such as the copula, articles, inflections, and some prepositions, (b)
"incorporation" or a slight variance of a sign which may be utilized to
indicate orientation, pronominalization, number, manner, size, and
shape, and (c) bodily or facial shifts.
Not surprisingly the above three signing universals are elements
that have and still do lead people to believe that signing is a very
primitive language.
Deaf children of deaf parents have consistently performed better
than deaf children of hearing parents. For the former their sign vocabu¬
lary naturally appears a little earlier than words in the hearing child
(Stokoe, 1975). This sign vocabulary grows at the same rate as a speech
vocabulary.
One of the reasons for this parallel acquisition, at least in the
rather early stages thus far investigated, could be the early interven¬
tion on the part of the deaf parents with a communication system which
the child could employ in much the same manner that the hearing child
employs speech. Therefore, the critical language period is not wasted.
It has been suggested that perhaps the deaf follow the same stages of
acquisition of certain language "universals"—as in the use of negation
and overgeneralization—as their hearing peers. Bellugi and Fischer
(1972) also reported that the deaf children appear to experience the
signing equivalent to infantile baby talk.

15
Research in the development of AMESLAN in children and the studies
of the properties of AMESLAN itself are still very meager and there is
a current debate as to the validity of AMESLAN as a language system.
Studies Utilizing Signs for Communication
Schlesinger (1971) performed an experiment in which his deaf sub¬
jects were encouraged to sign. Results indicated that even when per¬
mitted to utilize their gestural-visual modalities these deaf subjects
were unable to communicate to each other the relationship among agent,
direct object, and indirect object from among a set of picture cards
permitting all possible mutations of these three roles.
Because of these results it has been hypothesized that since the
deaf fail on certain tasks of syntactic ability, even in cases where
they are permitted to use their own gestural communication, that (a) they
lack the means of expressing certain relationships and/or (b) they are
totally unaware of these relationships.
The implication of the first hypothesis naturally is that gestural
communication is an inferior language because of its inability to ex¬
press more complex and abstract relationships. Many people oppose signs
for this very reason. It is felt that exposure to signs is contaminat¬
ing in that it binds the signer to the concrete and does not allow the
enrichments afforded by traditional language such as abstraction, per¬
sonification, and humor . There is, however, anecdotal evidence of a cer¬
tain type of humor typical of the deaf and therefore named "deaf humor,"
but no standard procedures have investigated this aspect of AMESLAN.
One implication of the second hypothesis is an inability for the
cognitive processes of the deaf to proceed beyond a very elementary level.

16
The syntactic structure under investigation in the previously cited
Schlesinger experiment was the direct and indirect object, and the
underlying relationship was a rather simple one occurring frequently
in daily life.
Bode (1974) replicated this experiment with one important differ¬
ence. The deaf subjects were matched on environmental and cultural
factors. With this variable constant her subjects had little difficulty
differentiating their partner's signed message for the appropriate direct
and indirect object from among a set of ambiguous pictures. These deaf
subjects not only knew about the relationship of this concept but could
successfully communicate it to others.
Prose and AMESLAN Communication
Previous investigators have analyzed the deaf's ability to com¬
municate words and specific sentence structures in AMESLAN. No "formal¬
ized" analysis has been made of the deaf's ability to utilize AMESLAN
to effectively communicate prose. Usage of "formalized" in this instance
is the requirement to communicate items of a specific paragraph, and not
the mere retelling of a story or event with which the subject is already
familiar.
Since we are interested in the communication effectiveness of what¬
ever signalling system is utilized, the Semantic Observational Approach
(for rating FC) would be the method to employ. This approach has two
main principles: (a) a reality principle—which is concerned with the
ideas themselves, and (b) a cooperative principle—which is concerned
with the way these ideas are expressed. These principles must also be
judged in a thematic structure; that is, the communicator must know

17
what information the listener needs to know and keep the conversation
pertinent to the desired goal or issue of the subject (Clark & Clark,
Chapter 2, 1977).
Memory is a vital component for prose recall and consequent com¬
munication to others. The performance of normals on certain tasks of
memory is briefly reviewed here; and it will be assumed from the data
of previous experiments (see section three, Cognitive Research) that
the cognitive processes of the deaf for semantic organization are com¬
parable to those of normals.
In a paragraph recall situation, memory (input, storage, output)
and linguistic ability are main factors. Because stories and paragraphs
are lengthy, very few experiments have been conducted on any subjects.
Most of the prose recall by normals is inferred from investigations
which can study memory in a more direct manner. These studies would in¬
clude investigations with words, letters, constituents, and sentences
for Short or Long Term Memory.
Clark and Clark (Chapter 4, 1977) cited the following as some of
the crucial factors which determine memory for prose:
1. Type of Language—as in a lecture, story, poem, or
unrelated sentences of a psychological experiment
2. Input—as in cases of hearing or reading the ma¬
terial and the specific instructions as to what
to retain, for example word for word memorization,
general meaning of the passage, or notation of
particular features as in grammatical errors
3. Retention Interval—as in delayed or immediate re¬
call of the material
4. Output—as in cases where verbatim, or general
idea, or judgmements of wheth r a test sentence
was present in the original form. (p. 133)

18
Certain biases are evident in constructing sentences from memory:
1. input of information not actually in the sentence
2. tendency towards simple (unmarked) syntax
3. strong preference in English for the subject to
appear in the initial position
4. preference for the affirmative over the negative
5. with 2 clauses, a preference to describe the
events in order of their actual occurrence.(Clark &
Clark, Chapter 4, 1977)
The kind and amount of information remembered depends critically
on the study strategies people use. This can be seen by the different
performances of people who are given the same test but presented with
different instructions.
There are other general implications evident in memory recall tasks
1. to obtain meaning rather than word for word retention
2. a tendency to draw the obvious conclusion
3. a reliance on world knowledge in conformity with
the reality principle
4. a tendency to use referents—attempts to integrate
new information with what is already known
5. a tendency towards utilizing indirect meaning where
the listener tries to build the interpretations he
thinks he was meant to build
6. a tendency towards the creation of global repre¬
sentations where with each new sentence people
create new representations unrelated to any single
sentence. (Clark & Clark, Chapter 4, 1977)
As linguistic ability is one of the two essential features of prose
recall, it is very important to remember this paramount feature when
choosing a recall passage for any population. Naturally the choice will
depend upon the particular research question being posed. For example,
since one of the questions of this investigation, the ability of AMESLAN

19
to effectively communicate new ideas, communication rather than linguistic
competence is the major issue. Therefore the prose passage for this study
is syntactically relatively simple.
Research conducted by Odom and Blanton (1967) indicated that syn¬
tactic order did not facilitate memory recall by hearing impaired stu¬
dents as it did for the hearing. The syntactically ordered stimuli
presented in their paired associate paradigm consisted of (a) partial
sentences [Verb (V)] phrases or partial [noun (N)] and V phrases and
(b) fragments [partial noun phrases (NP) and partial verb phrase (VP)].
Other stimuli were asyntactically ordered.
Further research on the effect of syntactic order on recall per¬
formance by the deaf and hearing was conducted by Tomblin (1977). How¬
ever, he changed his experimental paradigm from that of Odom and Blanton.
He studied immediate recall rather than recall from a paired associate
task which required a longer retention period. The stimuli consisted of
subject-verb-object (S-V-O) strings of 4, 6, and 8 words in length.
[Research has shown that both normals (Clark & Clark, Chapter 4, 1977)
and especially the deaf (see section three, Linguistic Research) are
biased toward this syntactical strategy.] The same words that appeared
for the ordered stimuli were recast in an asyntactical manner to form
the random ordered group. Although the hearing impaired group did per¬
form less accurately under both conditions when compared with their hear¬
ing peers, analysis revealed a decided preference among both groups
for the ordered sentences.
Tomblin regarded recall facilitated by syntax for his deaf sub¬
jects—as opposed to the opposite findings of Odom and Blanton—as
being attributed to the following features: (a) reliance on Short

20
rather than Long Term Memory and (b) stimuli material which utilized
the deaf's predisposition to assign the S-V-0 strategy to all phases
and sentences.
There have been several investigations of prose recall itself.
Walter Kintsch (1977) proposed a hierarchical theory of content represen¬
tation in texts (or the amount of meaning which might be computed to
phrases within a given passage).
He admitted that his theory was too general and too incomplete.
No processing models were given. However it does afford the researcher
some rather systematized manner in order that the investigation for
meaning for texts can become the subject of experimental design.
Usage of a hierarchical memory model is not unique. Collins and
Quillian (1969) used it in application to words. For example, the presen¬
tation of one word as in "canary" would most readily activate the next
higher category (in this case "bird") of which it is a member.
Kintsch's theory is based on the hypothesis that text bases are
structured hierarchically by a repetition rule. This rule refers to
the idea that given a set of propositions one (or more) is designated,
rather arbitrarily at this time by the experimenter, as the topical or
thematic element(s). This rule would thereby specify which propositions
are connected to other propositions, thus constituting levels of a
hierarchy. The thematic proposition is at the top of the hierarchy.
For example, in a story about airplane pilots and their many jobs the
sentence "Airplane pilots have many important jobs" could be considered
thematic. Subordinate to this level would be all properties that share
an agreement with the first (thematic) level proposition. To continue
with the above example some second (superordinate) level propositions

21
would be: "transportation between cities," "rescues," and "dropping
food." A third (subordinate) level of propositions may be determined
by selecting those elements which share agreement with any of the sec¬
ondary level propositions but not with a first level proposition. [Con¬
tinuing with the example, the phrases "of people," "of freight," and
"of mail" would all three be third (subordinate) level propositions of
the second (superordinate) level proposition "transportation."] Kintsch
noted that as with the thematic proposition(s) the superordinate proposi¬
tions are chosen intuitively.
Kintsch was interested in evaluating his theory and chose reading
rate and test structure as dependent variables for his experiment since
one of the implications of his hierarchical theory was that the number
of propositions should have predictable psychological effects. His ex¬
periments with the number and type of propositions as well as syntactical
complexity was related to reading time and the number and type of proposi¬
tions recalled. A summary of the results from his experiments tend to
give validity to his theory.
1. Reading time can be expressed as a linear function
of the number of propositions processed during
reading and the length of the text.
2. Time per proposition is variable (.5 sec. for
short historical narratives - 4 sec. for the
longest psychological definition). The longest
paragraph has only been 60 words.
3. The manner which the subjects process a test is
related to the structural relationship among the
propositions. Many-different-arguments require
longer reading time than few-different-arguments;
however the number of propositions recalled for
both text types is the same.
4. Superordinates are defined the best; and as the
level of propositions descends so does recall.

22
5. Superordinates were better recalled regardless
of their surface structure or serial position.
6. A primacy effect was observed for the super¬
ordinates .
7. No primacy effect was shown for the subordinates.
8. No recency effect was noted for both the super¬
ordinates and the subordinates.(Kintsch, Chapter 4,
1977)
No investigations similar to the ones above have been conducted
with the deaf for either communicative or cognitive information.
Summary of American Sign Language as an Effective Communication System
A review of American Sign Language as an effective communicative
system has revealed the following:
1. At one time signs were only viewed as a very primitive method
to make known basic wants and needs.
2. Recent research has indicated that sign language does have
certain consistent features which would imply that it is a more sophisti
cated communication method than previously thought. Naturally more re¬
search as to the exact properties involved is needed.
3. Deaf children of deaf parents have an advantage over their
peers of hearing parents in that the former are given a communication
system at once during the very early years which some authors believe
critical for more sophisticated language acquisition.
4. Deaf children of deaf parents display similar stages of in¬
fantile communication in signs as hearing children do for speech acquisi
tion. More exacting research is needed in this area.

23
5. It has been shown that deaf children of deaf parents have an
advantage in traditional language learning than deaf children of hearing
parents. More research is needed to determine if this traditional lan¬
guage advantage persists for older deaf adolescents for more complex
syntactical tasks.
6. There is a great controversy as to the validity of AMESLAN
as a communication system and its ability to adequately communicate
abstract thoughts, concepts, or basic relationships. Again, more re¬
search is needed.
7. Because of the specific properties of AMESLAN, the ability of
the deaf to communicate concepts and ideas in their visual-gestural mode
has been questioned; therefore, a rating of the deaf’s ability to com¬
municate in their preferred medium (AMESLAN) some standard paragraph
information would:
(a) give additional information to this debated question
(b) help ascertain if performance on specific linguistic
items is a reflection of general communicative abilities
(c) contribute information into the relatively unknown area
of the deaf's cognitive processing for memory for prose when test design
and recall ratings similar to Kintsch's theory are utilized and results
compared with his preliminary experimental findings for hearing subjects.
Language Assessment
Introduction
In this section the communicative ability of the deaf is viewed
in the more traditional linguistic methods of English. The question

24
here is not one of communicative effectiveness, but rather the ability
and extent to which the deaf are able to utilize and/or understand the
syntax of a natural language. To what extent and in what ways does the
syntax of the deaf differ from that of a hearing child acquiring English?
Educators of the deaf who have continually attempted, albeit for the
most part unsuccessfully, to teach English from infancy through young
adulthood are particularly interested in the specific results of syntac¬
tic studies. It would be invaluable to know if one testing procedure,
as opposed to another, would be more indicative of the deaf's true lin¬
guistic ability. It would be equally enlightening to discover if specific
linguistic skills were related in anyway to the overall communicative
effectiveness in situations where AMESLAN is used. Language was first
assessed indirectly through cognitive tasks. Later studies of specific
syntactic structures were begun. Both cognitive and specific syntactic
research are presented in this section.
Cognitive Research
People have traditionally assumed that speech, language, and
thought were associated with each other. Speech and language have al¬
ways been considered as primary factors for placing humans in a rather
special category apart from other animals. Speech is acquired by prac¬
tically everyone and proceeds along fairly consistent stages with little
geographical or cultural variation. Speech was considered the outward
manifestation of the presence of language. Language in turn was viewed
as necessary for performing the mediating processes necessary for thought.
Speech and language acquisition are so unique that it caused the
Ancients to view it as a direct gift from the gods. Therefore any event

25
which might disrupt acquisition or interfere with language already
acquired was interpreted as an act of the gods. Hence, any intervention
for the specific purpose of teaching language was not even considered.
As time passed speech and language were no longer thought of as
gifts from the gods. However, the belief remained that the absence of
any outward manifestation of language, that is,speech, preempted any
ability to think or reason. An archaic Spanish rule specified that deaf
children who did not speak were not entitled to inherit the lands of
their parents. (Naturally these parents invested a great deal of time
and effort so that their deaf child could utter a few words and thus
circumvent the law.)
Remnants of the association of speech, language, and thought remain
today as in the usage of such expressions as "deaf and dumb." Speech
pathologists report that questions often arise as to the extent of the
cognitive ability of a speechless individual.
Cutting and Kavanagh (1975) presented a good framework for viewing
speech and language which were seen as "a model of separate entities
in a symbiotic partnership performing similar functions towards similar
ends but at different levels" (p. 503). Caution was offered about the
danger of forgetting the interrelated functions of these two systems.
However, according to their theory speech works upward in the communica¬
tion chain to constrain and alter language while language descends in
the opposite direction to alter speech, the vocal tract, and perhaps
the ear.
Several intuitive and logical arguments were proposed for this
separation: (a) comparison of the rules of phonology with those of
syntax and semantics, (b) comparison of the development of speech in

26
man and in the child, and (c) comparison of sign language to speech.
It was concluded that it was possible to have speech without language
(as in fluent aphasics and babbling infants) and language without speech
(as in oral apraxia).
However, there were several different opinions as to possible
entries for the category of language without speech. Would it be ac¬
ceptable to place the chimpanzees who use signs or symbols in this cate¬
gory? As for the deaf, Furth's book, Thinking Without Language (1966),
was evidence for the position whereas Bellugi and Klima's book, The
Signs of Language (in press) was evidence for another position.
However, the absence of speech does not necessarily presuppose the
absence of language and/or thought. Because of the heterogeneity of the
deaf, language assessment has always been difficult. Therefore one
popular method has been to relate language to cognition and concept
formation and then evaluate performance on language free tasks.
Perhaps the most prolific writer in this field has been Hans Furth.
He summarized his results (1966) for the performance of deaf children
on certain Piagetian tasks and concluded that their performance was es¬
sentially the same as that of hearing children. Thus, at least for the
ages and concepts evaluated, the linguistically incompetent deaf performed
cognitive tasks on a par with their hearing peers.
His results are not without contradiction, but Furth attributes
the poorer performance by the deaf in these studies to the influence of
environmental factors and/or test design. In fact, the detrimental ef¬
fects of institutionalization on the deaf's performance for some of
these tasks have been reported (Raviv, Sharan, & Strauss, 1973).

27
In a review of all studies conducted with deaf and hearing children,
Furth (1971) attempted to isolate the effects of linguistic deficiency.
Areas were grouped according to (a) rule learning, (b) logical symbols,
(c) Piagetian tasks, (d) memory, and (e) perception. He concluded that
a single specific cognitive area cannot be designated where the deaf per¬
form poorer than the hearing controls. Some areas where the younger
deaf were initially poorer were located but they improved with matura¬
tion and finally equalled the performance with their hearing peers.
The specific tasks must be considered when interpreting the
above data. Sinclair-De-Zwart (1969) did find syntactic ability cor¬
related with the Piagetian conservation task. This result was in opposi¬
tion to that of Furth whose task was more elementary. Goodnow (1969)
cautioned that "type of thought" and "strength or stability of thought"
should be considered in that it is important to test familiar, signifi¬
cant material to determine what the child can do, but it is equally
important to discover if the response is merely a replication of past
experience rather than an extension of experience.
Few studies have tried to assess semantic organization through
language. Tweney and Hoemann (1973) chose to ascertain the development
of semantic associations in profoundly deaf children with regard to the
syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift. Noun, verb, and adjective associations
were presented by signs to the deaf. This very age related shift has
been found to occur in hearing children between the ages of 5 and 7.
Results indicated that a consistent and regular shift to paradigmatic
responses could be observed in the deaf but these responses were less
advanced than those for the hearing controls. The authors suggested
that for the deaf these deficits were quantitative rather than qualitative.

28
Tweney, Hoemann, and Andrews (1975) also studied semantic organiza¬
tion through the clustering of nouns by deaf and hearing subjects. When
the stimuli were equally familiar to both groups no differences in clus¬
terings were found.
It appears, then, that for the relatively elementary types of cogni¬
tive tasks thus far investigated the performance of deaf children is
similar, although at times less advanced, when compared to that of their
hearing peers.
Linguistic Research
Recently researchers have investigated the performance of the deaf
on specific syntactical items. These investigations, which focused on
structures, revealed more descriptive and quantitative information about
the actual linguistic performance of the deaf subject than the language-
free cognitive tasks.
Pertinent studies of the hard-of-hearing are included in this sec¬
tion since their performance reflects many of the same difficulties of
the deaf. Depending upon the specific task, an analysis of the language
of normal, hard-of-hearing and deaf children usually reveals an approxi¬
mation by the hard-of-hearing group to that of the normals and a very
limited and retarded performance by the deaf. However, with certain
more sophisticated syntactic structures, the hard-of-hearing perform
very similarly to the deaf. Sometimes this difficulty is only revealed
through tests explicitly designed to assess performance on a particular
construction. It is not because these deficient areas are unimportant
that they remain unnoticed, but rather the hard-of-hearing child may
succeed and function adequately in spite of them. In contrast the

29
deficiencies of the child are quite apparent. On many tasks his per¬
formance is limited, absent, or indicative of immature and/or deviant
strategies.
Brannon (1968) compared the spoken output of normal, hard-of-hearing,
and deaf children according to a linguistic word class system devised
by Jones, Goodman, and Wepman (1963). Fifty spoken responses to pictures
were recorded from each with the hearing impaired having an additional
response form so that they could write each response as they said it.
These responses were then classified into 14 distinct grammatical classes.
The differences in basic vocabulary were great with the normals having
a vocabulary of 10,876 words and the hard-of-hearing and deaf having
vocabularies of 4,440 and 3,256 words respectively.
An analysis according to word category revealed that the hard-of-
hearing, although definitely limited, were not significantly different
from the normals. There was a tendency for the hard-of-hearing to be
deficient in adverbs, pronouns, and auxiliaries. In comparison the deaf
were deficient in these categories as well as in all of the remaining
ones. Overusage of nouns and articles was noted for both hearing im¬
paired groups.
These results were consistent with those of a previous study
(Brannon & Murry, 1966) which utilized the same testing procedures but
analyzed the sentences according to categories suggested by Myklebust
(1964). Sentences were then scored as to (a) additions, (b) omissions,
(c) word substitutions, and (d) word order. This procedure revealed
the tendency of the hard-of-hearing and especially the deaf to utilize
simple S-V-0 sentence order.

30
In order to determine a hierarchy for graphic, phonetic, and as¬
sociative characteristics in response selection Blanton, Nunnally, and
Odom (1967) compared the performance of deaf and hearing students on
three types of word association tasks which consisted of associative,
rhyming, and graphemic similarities.
Both groups had the same order of preference: associated, graphemi-
cally similar, and rhyming pairs. These results led the authors to hy¬
pothesize that the hearing and deaf subjects were using the same processes.
The deaf did indicate a greater tendency to associate words on the basis
of their graphemic similarity, but this did not hinder their ability to
respond on the basis of other relationships.
Although hearing, hard-of-hearing, and deaf children may use the
same strategies on paired word association tasks, the actual spoken and
written vocabulary of the three groups was clearly distinguishable no
matter what categorization or scoring method was employed. The hard-
of-hearing performance shadowed that of normals but showed deficiencies
in the usage of adverbs, pronouns, auxilaries, and a tendency to over¬
use simple S—V—0 order in sentences. These same characteristics, but
in a far more pronounced degree, were also observed for the deaf.
Rather than investigating mere word count and/or category differ¬
ences, other researchers have examined the usage of specific construc¬
tions in the sentence unit considered as a whole.
Wilcox and Tobin (1974) investigated the linguistic performance
of hard-of-hearing and hearing children on certain verb constructions.
Preliminary investigations had revealed that the subjects, who were ap¬
proximately 11 years old, had already mastered the simpler constructions
of negation, question formation, and past tense. The following verb

31
constructions were considered: present tense, the auxiliaries (be+ing,
have+en, will), passive, and negative passive.
There were two sets each of which contained six sentences which
were constructed and used under the following three experimental condi¬
tions: (a) repetition with visual stimuli, (b) recall where the pic¬
ture was shown and the appropriate sentence was required, and (c) repeti¬
tion without visual stimuli. Both groups had more difficulty with the
recall task. The performance of the hearing impaired group shadowed that
of the normals on all constructions with the exception of the auxiliary
have+en and the negative passive.
The authors interpreted the results as indicating that the hard-
of-hearing performance differed in degree rather than kind. They cited
the findings of Menyuk (1969) for hearing children from 3 to 7 years of
age. The percentage correct for these children was practically the same
as that achieved by Wilcox and Tobin's older but hard-of-hearing children.
Correct Usage
Menyuk
Wilcox & Tobin
be+ing
100%
100%
passive
64%
73%
have+en
25%
45%
(P
Quigley and Power (1973) gave three types of passive sentences to
a group of deaf children ranging in age from 9 to 18 years. Reversable,
non-reversable, and agent deleted reversable passives were evaluated.
The subjects were required to move toys representing the subject and ob¬
ject of the sentence. For the production task an incomplete sentence
naming the subject and object was presented under a picture. The sub¬
jects were asked what happened, and they responded using one or more of

32
a set of provided words. Some of the words employed were: was, Verb-ed,
by, Verb-ing, and did.
Differences in performance and comprehension were seen as a func¬
tion of age. A hierarchy of difficulty appeared which from least to most
difficult was: nonreversable passives, reversable passives, and agent
deleted passives. Practically all of the hearing had mastered the compre¬
hension and production of the passive by age 8 whereas this was not the
case for the deaf even at the ages of 17 or 18. None of the older deaf
adolescents met the 75% (items correct) passing criterion for each struc¬
ture. The average correct scores for the older deaf adolescents were:
65% for nonreversable passives, 60% for reversable passives, and 35%
for agent deleted passives.
It seemed apparent that the deaf often only used "by" of the agent
as a marker for the passive. This strategy coupled with the deaf's over¬
use of S-V-0 word order for sentence comprehension could cause them a
great deal of confusion especially in reading. Hearing 3 year olds have
interpreted passives in this manner.
For correct interpretation of indirect and direct objects younger
children rely solely on the marker "to" as in "He gave the flowers _t()
the girl." Older children however can differentiate direct and indirect
objects by other strategies. Sentence ambiguity may also be clarified
by: (a) insertion of an article ("They fed her dog the candies" or "They
fed her the dog candies") and (b) appropriate disjuncture as in a pause
or stress.
Scholes, Tanis, and Anderson (1976) presented a picture verifica¬
tion task in order to ascertain the comprehension by hard-of-hearing
children for direct and indirect objects in sentences. These students

33
were attending classes in regular public schools and ranged in age from
9.5 - 19.4 years. Subjects were shown a series of slides with each
slide containing four pictures. These pictures included: (a) a "B
Reading" where the article was inserted before the last two nominal ele¬
ments as in "They . . . the dog candies" thus rendering the entire unit
as the indirect object; (b) an "A Reading" with the insertion of the
article before the last nominal as in "They . . . the candies" thus
rendering a single word as the indirect object; and (c) two other ran¬
domly selected pictures from other test sentences which bore no re¬
semblance to the lexical items mentioned in the sentence to be evaluated.
Subjects were presented 10 unambiguous and 5 ambiguous sentences.
"They fed her dog candies" is an example of one of the ambiguous sen¬
tences. The test sentences were presented both orally and graphically
as well as a simultaneous presentation of the slide pictures. The sub¬
ject pointed to the picture number which corresponded to the sentence.
Lexical errors, the selection of unrelated pictures to sentences,
were practically nonexistent. However, the average 14.5 year old hard-
of-hearing student correctly comprehended only 59% of the unambiguous
sentences. These results were comparable to the comprehension of a hear¬
ing 5 year old. By the age of 13 hearing children correctly comprehended
91% of these unambiguous sentences.
The authors noted that for the ambiguous sentences there was a
preference for the B Readings by both the hearing and hard-of-hearing
groups. This preference increased with age but was not present in col¬
lege subjects. This discovery was interpreted to represent a changing
bias toward one or more developing comprehensional strategies. For the
most part this bias would be non-1inguistic in that it would favor the
more probable or "most likely" meaning of a sentence.

34
Scholes, Cohen, and Brumfield (in press) administered a similar task
to 234 deaf students in grades 8 - 12 in a residential school for the deaf.
The similarity of the deaf's performance to that of the public school,
hard-of-hearing students is quite remarkable. The deaf comprehended 60%
of the unambiguous sentences. For the ambiguous sentences there was
again a preference for the B Reading form. This might suggest that the
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing shared a comprehensional strategy bias.
Quigley and Power (1972) began the development of a Test of Syntac¬
tic Abilities (TSA) as part of a total research program to evaluate com¬
prehension and production for the following areas: (a) determiners, (b)
negation, (c) question formation, (d) pronominalization, (e) reflexiviza-
tion, (f) the verb system, (g) conjunction, (h) complementation, and (i)
relativization. Subtests for nominalization and several aspects of com¬
plementation were omitted from the final version of the TSA because the
authors reported little understanding of their usage by 18 and 19 year
old deaf students even after extensive pretesting. For each structure
under investigation the subtests of the TSA contained written items where
the subject was required to make judgments as to the correct meaning of the
stimulus sentences and/or determine the grammaticalness of the stimulus
sentence and correct it when necessary. The following are two examples:
The girl who hit the boy went
home.
What happened?
The girl hit the boy.
yes
no
The boy hit the girl.
yes
no
The boy went home.
yes
no
The girl went home.
yes
no
(Quigley, Smith, & Wilbur, 1974, p. 328)

35
1• The girl who the girl found the ball played in the park.
Check ONE box. The sentence is:
Right Go to 2.
Wrong Change the sentence to make it RIGHT.
Write the right sentence here
(Quigley, Smith, & Wilbur, 1974, p. 329)
Utilizing a subtest of the TSA Quigley, Wilbur, and Montanelli
(1974) investigated question formation by the deaf. Results indicated
increasing improvement for the deaf with age. However even the youngest
hearing subject in the third grade consistently obtained higher scores
than the majority of the older deaf subjects. A response hierarchy did
appear for both groups with the best comprehension for yes/no questions
followed by Wh- questions. Tag questions proved to be the most diffi¬
cult.
Quigley, Smith, and Wilbur (1974) again employed subtests of the
TSA to study relativized sentences in the deaf. The clauses were classi¬
fied according to: (a) placement [final (F) or medial (M)] and (b) func¬
tion of the relative pronoun (subject or object, with or without a pro¬
noun) .
Results of the processing test again demonstrated a marked supe¬
riority by the 10 year old hearing subjects (83% correct) when compared
with the 18 year old deaf subjects (76% correct). For both groups a
hierarchy of difficulty existed with the easiest pronoun for both groups
dependent on its position in the embedded clause. Beginning with the
most difficult the following order was observed: (a) object-pronoun
clause, M position, (b) subject-pronoun clause, M position, (c) subject-
pronoun clause, F position, and (d) object-pronoun clause, F position.

36
The deaf showed more improvement with age for the final position with
91% correct at age 19 as compared with only 45% correct at age 10. How¬
ever, increased performance with age was not witnessed for the medial
position which revealed 56% correct at age 19. This latter score is
similar to the 10 year old hearing subjects' responses of 68% correct
for the medial position.
When presented with embedded sentences the deaf frequently inap¬
propriately deleted the noun phrase in the following manner: "The dog
chased the girl had on a red dress." The deaf showed particular dif¬
ficulty with the possessive. Older groups did accept the proper form
of possession "whose" in a relative clause, and they also recognized
as incorrect sentences where the possessive was required but was not
present. However, they were also unable to recognize as incorrect sen¬
tences with the possessive form noun phrase where "whose" was required,
such as, "I helped the boy's mother was sick."
A study by Davis and Blasdell (1975) revealed that the hard-of-
hearing also had difficulty with relative clauses. The purpose of the
investigation was to ascertain certain perceptual strategies of hearing
and hard-of-hearing children aged 6-9 years. Sentence stimuli of the
following form were read to the children:
The man who chased the sheep cut the grass.
NI VI N2 V2 N3
The children pointed to the appropriate picture from among a choice of
four which were designed by the experimenters for the following four
possible perceptual strategies:
1. N1 V2 N3 (The man cut the grass). This involved
comprehension of at least 1 and probably both
sentences underlying the main sentence.

37
2. NI VI N2 (The man chased the sheep). This involved
comprehension of only 1 underlying strategy—S-V-O.
3. N2 V2 N3 (The sheep ate the grass). This response
indicated a failure to comprehend either of the 2
underlying sentences.
4. N2 VI N1 (The sheep chased the man). This response
reflected a failure to comprehend either of the
2 base sentences and could have resulted from the
use of 0 - 2 lexical items as a basis for compre¬
hension. (p. 285)
Results indicated a quantative and qualitative difference in the scores
of the two groups. Although both groups placed more emphasis on making
the first noun the subject, this was more often true for the hearing
group (92%) than for the hard-of-hearing group (74%). Among the latter
group there was also a marked tendency to use the confused strategy
(N2 V2 N3) of taking the object of the relative clause and making it the
subject and using the verb and noun immediately following it as the main
verb and object. This type of response persisted in spite of the fact
that it necessitated the acceptance of a verb that did not appear in the
stimulus sentence.
This acceptance of a totally new verb is important in that it in¬
dicated an overwhelming tendency of the hearing impaired toward this type
of strategy. In the Quigley, Smith, and Wilbur (1974) experiment the
required responses were yes/no to several written sentences to determine
the correct perception of the stimulus sentence. The deaf might easily
interpret in his sentences the N2 of the embedded clause as the "logical"
subject of V2. The following sentence provides an example from one of
Quigley's stimulus sentences and a possible interpretation of the deaf.
The girl who hit the boy went home.
NI VI N2 V2 N3

38
However, the overwhelming preference for an N2 V2 N3 strategy is not as
obvious in the above example because, unlike the Davis and Blasdell
study, there is no need to accept a new verb. "The boy went home" is
more likely to occur than "The sheep cut the grass."
Wilbur, Quigley, and Montanelli (1975) administered appropriate
subtests of the TSA to investigate the deaf's performance on conjoined
sentences. Results indicated that production of conjoined sentences
was more difficult than judgments of grammaticalness. For the deaf
subjects conjoined subjects were easiest followed by conjoined objects
and conjoined verb phrases. The general pattern of development again
seemed to shadow that of the hearing subjects. However some syntactic
deviations were found to be peculiar to the deaf and resistant to im¬
provement with age. It appeared that the deaf had not mastered a rule
of conjunction in which the subjects of the two sentences must serve the
same function. In the following two sentences, "The boy kicked the
cat" and "The cat ran away," it seemed to many of the deaf that it was
the boy who ran away.
To ascertain the deaf's performance on verb inflections and auxil¬
iaries Quigley, Montanelli, and Wilbur (1976) compared the performance
of deaf students of ages 10 - 19 years with that of hearing students with
an age range of 8 - 10 years on the following aspects of the verb system:
auxiliary verbs, tense sequencing, verb deletion, and the confusion of
"be" and "have." The appropriate subtests of TSA were employed.
Results revealed the extreme difficulty that deaf students had with
verb agreement and the extreme age differences for correct performance
by the hearing and deaf. Although some improvement was seen with age,
even the oldest deaf subjects performed at a significantly lower level

39
than the 10 year old hearing subjects. A hierarchy of difficulty for
tense could be observed which from least to most difficult was: simple
past, future, present progressive, perfective, and passive. These re¬
sults concurred with those which Wilcox and Tobin (1974) found for their
younger hard-of-hearing students.
Judgments of grammaticalness did improve for the deaf, but this
was discovered to be caused by an increased awareness by the older deaf
subjects to judge incorrect sentences as ungrammatical rather than an
increased ability to recognize a correct sentence as being grammatical.
Even if the deaf did recognize a sentence as being incorrect, as in verb
deletion, they were quite often unable to supply a verb that was correct
in either number or tense. This difficulty was similar to the results
in the Wilcox and Tobin (1974) study where there was a marked tendency
to confuse "have" and "be."
Summary of the Review of Language Assessment
A review of language assessment has indicated the following:
1. Language and cognition may be unrelated to the extent that
young deaf and hearing children usually displayed similar performances
on elementary Piagetian tasks, and both groups had no difficulty with
the semantical organization of nouns, verbs, and adjectives if the word
stimuli were familiar to them.
However, there was a question as to the relationship of language
and cognition with an increase in age. Sinclair-De-Zwart found the
more difficult Piagetian tasks related to syntactic ability. More re¬
search utilizing more difficult tasks with older populations is indicated.

AO
2. There was a tendency for hearing, hard-of-hearing, and deaf
to prefer the same problem solving strategies.
(a) On a paired word test, all three groups preferred asso¬
ciation, followed by graphemically similar, and rhyming pairs.
(b) For a sentence repetition task under three experimental
conditions the hard-of-hearing and hearing had the most difficulty with
the recall task.
(c) A tendency with age for an increased interpretation of
B Readings (Art + N + N) for ambiguous direct and indirect object sen¬
tences was observed among the hearing, hard-of-hearing, and deaf.
3. Although even the oldest deaf subjects often scored lower than
the youngest hearing subjects, the deaf appeared to follow the same pat¬
tern of acquisition as the hearing in that the deaf did acquire, although
in many cases after a delay of several years, some of the earliest ap¬
pearing syntactical forms:
(a) present and past tense
(b) pluralization
(c) yes/no questions
(d) relativized clauses in the final position.
4. Other data indicated that for some structures the deaf showed
more than a gross delay but rather a chance performance which indicated
no valid knowledge of the particular structure under scrutiny.
(a) Passives were usually acquired by hearing children by
ages 8 or 9 whereas the older deaf were still processing all sentences
as S-V-O. Usage of the marker "by" was their only indication of the
passive. This strategy was observed to be similar to that of a 3 year

41
old hearing child. Even by age 18, the deaf student performed correctly
on 65% for non-reversable passives, 60% for reversable passives, and
35% for agent deleted passives.
(b) Indirect and direct object distinctions were initially
correctly comprehended through the use of the marker "to" by hearing,
hard-of-hearing, and deaf children. By the age of 13 the hearing chil¬
dren had acquired additional strategies and could make the object distinc¬
tions with 91% accuracy. However, hard-of-hearing subjects of 14.5 years
of age comprehended these distinctions with only 59% accuracy. Deaf
children of 16.5 years were able to comprehend only 60% of these struc¬
tures .
(c) Sentence comprehension for certain question formations
by 18 year old deaf subjects revealed a correct performance of 70% for
Wh- questions and 60% for tag questions.
(d) For medial embedded relativized clauses che 19 year old
deaf scored 56% correct which is comparable to 68% correct for a hearing
student at age 10.
5. Deviant strategies were observed in the performances of the
hard-of-hearing and deaf in their
(a) confusion of the verb "be" and "have"
(b) inability to recognize the need for the possessive noun
phrase "whose"
(c) tendency to take the object of the embedded relative
clause, make it the subject, and use the immediately following verb and
noun as the main verb and object
(d) ignorance of the conjunction rule that the subjects of
the sentences to be conjoined must serve the same function.

6. Previous syntactic studies were conducted in either the graphic
or oral medium which required either graphic, oral, or pointing response.
There is a possibility that poor performance resulted more from the
deaf subject's difficulty in expressing himself in the required test
format rather than his lack of English syntax. Tweney et al. (1975)
found no differences in semantic categorization between deaf and hearing
subjects when the stimuli were signed to the deaf.
If the same test were given under two separate conditions—one
utilizing traditional graphic stimuli and responses and the other condi¬
tion employing a format more indigenous for the deaf (signing and finger
spelling) for stimuli presentation and subject responses, scores would:
(a) answer questions as to the true linguistic ability of the
deaf for these items
(b) serve as a possible design for future linguistic investi¬
gations with this population.
7. The studies indicated that knowledge of syntactical structures
in the deaf could be classified as to delay in acquisition, usage of in¬
appropriate or deviant strategies, and complete absence of certain struc¬
tures .
Further research with different age groups on language structures
is needed to help ascertain:
(a) which of any or all of the above conditions is applicable
to specific structures
(b) background information so that some educational process
of remediation could then be commenced not only for the deaf but for
the hard-of-hearing as well.

Morphological Assessment
Introduction
The communicative ability of the deaf is examined again according
to the linguistic approach, but morphology, rather than syntax, is the
theme of this section. The same questions posed in the introduction
for section three are also relevant for this section. Exactly when and
how does usage of morphological rules employed by the hearing child oc¬
cur in the deaf? Can morphological performance by the deaf be enhanced
through a presentation and response format more indigenous to the deaf
as in finger spelling and/or signing? Can performance on these specific
morphological structures predict general communication effectiveness in
situations where AMESLAN is used? This section includes the rationale
for the Berko Test of Morphology (BTM) and its usage with various popu¬
lations including the deaf.
Rationale for the Use of Nonsense Syllables
In 1958 Jean Berko developed a classic study to assess children's
knowledge of English morphology. In order to insure correct internaliza¬
tion of the English rule for certain inflections she used nonsense stimuli
rather than real words. This technique would eliminate the possibility
of the child responding with the correct inflection because of previous
experience with a particular word. For example, if he knew that the
plural of witch was witches he may have simply memorized that form.
However, if he correctly responded with the nonsense word "gutches" as the
plural of "glutch," it was assumed that this particular rule for plurali-
zation had become internalized.

Lists of the most commonly used vocabulary of first grade children's
conversations, compositions, and letters were studied. These lists in¬
cluded all of the English inflectional morphemes. From this information
the author decided what kinds of extensions might be expected to be made
by the young child. The areas assessed were plurals, past tense, third
person singular of the verb, progressives, comparative and superlative
of the adjective, and two possessives of the noun. Derivational and
compound words were also included.
When written the terminal letter "s" may express several different
structures (plural, third person singular, or possessive). The spoken
allomorphs of the letter "s" (/-s/, /-z, /-0z/), even though syntactically
may express different structures, are phonologically conditioned and
identical with one another. Similarly graphic inflection of the regular
past tense is "ed"; however, the productive allomorphs (/1 /, /-d/, /-*^d /)
are also phonologically conditioned. An example for the past tense
would be:
/—t/ after stems that terminate in voiceless sounds
as in /p/, /k/, /tj/, /f /, /G/, /s/.
/—d/ after stems that terminate in voiced sounds
as in /b/, /g/, /v/, /%/, /m/, /n/, /j/, /r/, /l/
/-^d/ after stems that terminate in /t/, /d/
The progressive "-ing" and the adjectives "-er" and "-est" are in¬
variable. It should also be noted that the plural possessive has an
/—0/ allomorph. There is no phonological difference in singular and
plural possession. This difference is indicated graphically, however,
by placement of the apostrophe as in "boy's" and "boys."'

45
Also noted in the first graders' vocabulary and consequently tested
by Berko were words consisting of a free morpheme and a derivational
suffix as in "teacher" or of two free morphemes as in "blackboard." She
felt that there were enough examples to warrant testing the diminutive-
affectionate-y, the adjectival-y, and the agentive-er.
To assess the child's use of various morphological rules under
differing phonological conditions nonsense words were made up which fol¬
lowed phonological rule usage in English. Several real English words
were also included in the test.
Each test plate included nonsense pictures and a text which
omitted the desired form. Figure 1 illustrates an example of a test
for the plural allomorph /-z/. A plate similar to the following would
be used:
This is a wug
Now there is another one
There are two of them.
There are two
The test was also given to native adult speakers of English.
Their responses, which did vary, were the criterion used in evaluating
the children's responses for the derivational and compound words.
The test was given to preschool and first grade children. Con¬
sistency, regularity, and simplicity were three main characteristics of
the children's responses. New items were not treated in an idiosyncratic
pattern. Best performances were on those forms that are the most fre¬
quently used and/or have the fewest variants.

46
The importance of Berko's work in linguistic investigation is evi¬
dent by the fact that other researchers have adapted and/or modified
the basic test and used this instrument in morphological studies with
different populations. The basic validity of nonsense words as measure¬
ments of morphological sophistication has been validated by many studies.
Anisfeld and Tucker (1967) studied the productive and receptive
performance on pluralization rules by 6 year old American children. A
general hierarchy of difficulty emerged with the easiest allophone being
/-z/ followed by /-s/ and finally /^¡>z/.
Ivimey (1975) used the Berko method to study the formulation and
use of morphological rules in a large sample of London school children
between the ages of 3.5 to 9 years. His results were also in broad agree¬
ment with those of Berko; the acquisition process, however, for his popu¬
lation was much slower.
The Grammatic Closure subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholin-
guistic Abilities (ITPA) (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968) was modeled
directly after Berko's test but used meaningful lexical items to assess
a child's productive competence for morphological rules. This particular
subtest of the ITPA is regarded by many speech clinicians as one of the
few subtests that actually measures what all of the subtests claim to
appraise—mainly the evaluation of language. There is an excellent cor¬
relation between Berko's test and the Grammatic Closure subtest.
Pettit and Gillespie (1975) compared the performances of children
from 3-8 years of age on 10 selected items from the Berko test and 10
corresponding lexical items from the Grammatic Closure subtest of the
ITPA. Results concurred with those of other researchers in that the
children scored higher on the meaningful ITPA items than on the Berko
items at every age level.

47
Berry and Talbott (Berry, 1966) published a language test adapted
from Berko which utilized nonsense pictures and words in a sentence com¬
pletion task. Thirty-eight items were used to explore the child's
ability to make up and to use rules of grammar and syntax. All of the
morphological inflections which were assessed in the Berko test were
also incorporated in the Berry-Talbott Test (BTT). The authors stated
that their test was limited to the knowledge of linguistic morphology
common to children between 5-8 years of age.
The plates are presented to the child so that he may see the pic¬
tures, and if he is able, to follow the sentences that are read to him.
No attempt was made to secure normative scores for various age levels.
Based on preliminary studies the authors predicted differences in per¬
formance levels with age so that:
In general . . . the average 5-year old child would
successfully complete the sentences on Plates I - V,
the 6-year old, I - XIV (with one error); the 7-year
old I - XX (with one error); and allowing for one
error the average child of eight years should be able
to sweep the series I - XXX. (p. 3)
Vogel (1977) found both the BTT and the Grammatic Closure subtest
of the ITPA extremely valuable measures for identifying children who
were good readers from those who were dyslexic. Both tests were ad¬
ministered and results indicated that the dyslexics were significantly
inferior to the good readers. The author hypothesized that difficulty
with even simple morphological inflections could result in inefficient
use of the semantic and syntactic clues provided by morphology in
written material.
Newfield and Schlanger (1968) utilized Berko's nonsense words as
well as a list of real words to compare acquisition of English morphology
by normal and educable mentally retarded children.

48
The learning pace was slower for the latter population; however,
the order of acquisition was the same as for the normal group. Differ¬
ences favoring correct responses for real over nonsense items appreared
for both groups. The disparity was greater for the mentally retarded
group. This result helped confirm Berko's supposition that there is a
difference in application of a rule to a familiar item and the general¬
ized application of this rule to unfamiliar items. It appeared that
application of inflectional endings appeared first in familiar contexts
and then, after some time lapse, this rule could be extended to unfamiliar
items.
Dever and Gardner (1970) also studied the performance of normal
and retarded boys on Berko's tests. Their results supported those of
Newfield and Schlanger (1968).
In the above study it was observed that although some of the chil¬
dren failed to supply the correct morpheme in the test situation, they
did in fact use it correctly in conversational speech. In 1972 Dever
presented a revised Berko test and also two samples of free speech from
30 educable mentally retarded boys.
Results revealed that although lexical items were slightly better
predictors than nonsense items, both stimuli were poor indicators of cor¬
rect morphological usage in spontaneous speech for this population.
No differences in morphological structures in the language of dis¬
advantaged and advantaged children were found when Shriner and Miner
(1968) assessed the groups' receptive and expressive performance on a
Berko type nonsense syllable test. The test did measure linguistic
ability as both groups improved in application of morphological rules
to unfamiliar situations with a corresponding increase in mental age.

49
The authors hypothesized that when relevant variables such as IQ and
articulation are controlled the morphological abilities measured in
their study may not be sensitive enough to any discrepancies between
the two groups.
The Berko Test has not been without criticism. Some critics claim
that the use of nonsense syllables is a confusion factor and that actual
language is better than test results would indicate. One of the harshest
criticisms is the myth of an "ideal" or "standard adult model." The
responses of Berko's adults did vary for the derivational and compound
words; however, other authors have found the adult responses for these
items much more variable than those obtained by Berko. Dever and
Gardner (1970) criticized their version of Berko's test on this point.
They accepted and scored as correct for the students any of their
teachers' responses for those items that occurred with a frequency of
over 15%. Ivimey (1975) also found his adult models far from stable.
He attributed this factor to the increase in linguistic sophistication
(as measured by postschool education) so that greater deviance was
demonstrated in manipulating the nonsense words.
Larson, Summers, and Jacquot (1976) specifically criticized the
BTT on the ambiguity of adult responses. None of his adult models
achieved a perfect score on this test, and the majority missed between
six and seven items. The following four items were missed by more
than half of the adults: the diminutive of "nad," the derived word
"nadhouse," and the two derived adjectives "troppy" and "liggy." Not
surprisingly these were also the same items most often missed by the
children whose ages were 5.5, 6, and 6.5.

50
A further criticism was what Larson et al. (1976) felt was the
highly unrealistic projected performance scores according to age which
Berry and Talbott had made. (Refer to the section on the BTT for the
projected performance levels.) The scores of these subjects did support
this contention. However, if one looked at the errors made by the
majority of the children, in addition to the ones previously described,
these additional errors were on a fairly high level for the BTT. These
errors included the plurals for the stimulus items "lutz" and "spuz"
which require the /-¿jz/ allomorph, and the derived noun for the stimulus
item "bine."
When the higher adult mean scores were compared with those of the
children, a maturational effect was suggested. Correlating again with
the results of other researchers the majority of the children's responses,
even when incorrect, showed evidence of regularity and rule formation.
Despite the criticisms Larson et al. (1976) felt the BTT to be a valuable
tool in discovering the evolution of a child's morphological development.
Morphological Studies of the Deaf
There has been only one widely reported study on the use of mor¬
phological and derivational rules by the deaf. In 1967 Cooper assessed
the knowledge of deaf children to apply inflected and derivational suf¬
fixes on an instrument modeled on the test devised by Berko. This
test utilized nonsense pictures and "words" to elicit the desired
morphological form.
In Cooper's (1967) study a paper and pencil test was devised to
obtain information about receptive and productive ability. The 140 deaf
students ranged in age from 7 to 19 years, and the 176 hearing students
had an age range of 7 to 11 years.

51
Receptive knowledge was ascertained in the following manner. An
animal was called a "mogg" and below there were four pictures: one of
two moggs, one of a single mogg, one of a mogg with a different animal,
and one of a different animal. The children were asked to put an "X"
on "moggs."
To determine productive knowledge the child was asked to modify
nonsense words cued by a picture. Under the picture was a text of the
following type: "This is a man who knows how to hipp. He did it yester¬
day. What did he do yesterday? Yesterday he (h) ." If the sub¬
jects wrote (h)ipped, it was taken as an indication that productive
knowledge of the past tense existed.
There were three types of testing for irregular inflectional pat¬
terns. In the first form the students were given a picture, for example,
"mife," and read that they were to select the picture of the irregular
plural in this example "mives." In the second condition the students
were to choose the word that best completed a sentence within a given
context, for example, "Mary has a tife. Jack has a tife. They both
have two (tife, tifes, tive, tives)." The regular or the irregular form
was scored as correct. In the third condition the subjects were required
to complete a sentence in a given context, for example, there was a pic¬
ture of an imaginary animal named a "zife" and there was another picture
of two animals similar to the first. The subject had to complete the
sentence: "Here are two (z) ." Credit was given for the regular
model response (zifes) or the irregular model (zives).
Comprehension of derivational words was determined by having the
child select the best word from a multiple choice array, for example,
"Mary knows how to zugg. She zuggs everyday. She knows a lot about:
(zuggy, zugged, zuggness, zugging)."

52
Productive knowledge of derivational words was obtained by requir¬
ing the subject to complete a statement, for example, "John's dog has
waggs on it. Waggs are all over the dog. It is a (w) dog."
Results indicated the marked superiority of even the youngest sub¬
jects over the average score of the 19 year old deaf students. Patterns
of item difficulty for the deaf students shadowed that of the hearing
students with performance for the two groups being closest on inflec¬
tional items and farthest apart on derivational items. Hearing females
passed each item clearly and consistently with a corresponding increase
in age. This was not the case for the deaf females where the percentage
for passing each item increased erratically and inconsistently with
chronological age. There was greater discrepancy when scores were com¬
pared with chronological age rather than with mental age or reading
equivalent. There was an increased tendency for both groups to use the
irregular plural with age. Plural nouns and past tense were the easiest
items. Next, proceeding from least to most difficult were: 1) progres¬
sive, 2) superlative adjective, 3) comparative adjective, 4) third person
singular, and 5) derived words.
Cooper's test, as in several of the syntactic tests reviewed in
the previous section, was a graphic evaluation, and he thought his test
a promising instrument for assessing children's knowledge of certain lan¬
guage rules, however, he cautioned that although written and spoken
English have many common features, there is not a one-to-one correspon¬
dence between these two communication modes.
Summary of Morphological Assessment
A review of morphological assessment has indicated the following
generalizations:

53
1. Nonsense tests of morphology adapted from Berko's original
test (1958) are valid in measuring a child's ability to apply morphologi¬
cal rules to new stimuli. Consistency, regularity, and simplicity are
three characteristics which are evident in responses, even if the response
is incorrect.
2. These tests of morphology have proved useful in assessing a
child's developmental level in morphological rule application and in dif¬
ferentiating among normal and other population groups such as the deaf,
the dyslexics, and the mentally retarded.
3. Children always perform better on morphological tests which
employ real rather than nonsense items. They first demonstrate mor¬
phological usage with true words and then, after some delay, are able
to extend this rule to unfamiliar nonsense words.
4. Rate of morphological rule acquisition may vary but the general
order of acquisition is preserved. Performance is best on the inflections
most frequently used and/or on those having the fewest variants.
5. With adults who have achieved a certain degree of linguistic
sophistication because of their educational backgrounds there is a great
variety of responses—especially for derived compound words, diminutives,
and derived adjectives.
6. The BTT has been shown to be a valid test of morphology and
to correlate with other valid language assessment tests (Grammatic
Closure Subtest of the ITPA).

54
7. Cooper's evaluation (1967) was a paper and pencil test. He,
himself, cautioned about adopting a one-to-one correlation between graphic
and spoken language.
(a) Therefore, in a population like the deaf, who use visual
and gestural signals as their primary method of communication, a test
of morphological rules presented visually (sign and finger spelling) and
requiring a visual response would give more valid information about the
deaf's knowledge of morphological rules since the procedure would be in
a medium indigenous to them.
(b) An administration of the same test in the traditional
graphic manner would determine the extent which medium presentation af¬
fects the deaf's responses and if the poor morphological performances
could be an artifact of a particular testing procedure, or true ignorance
by the deaf for certain morphological rules.
Statement of the Problem
The purposes of this research were to investigate the visual (finger
spelled and signed English) vs. the graphic performance of deaf adoles¬
cents on linguistic tasks using the BTT and to investigate if a rela¬
tionship existed between these scores and judgments of FC proficiency.
FC proficiency was judged by persons knowledgeable in sign language and
finger spelling utilizing a 5 point Quality Scale and a specific Item
Analysis Sample which contained the major and minor items of the story.
The specific goals of this investigation were:
1. To determine if a method of presentation and response (finger
spelled or graphic) would influence the linguistic performance of the
deaf.

55
2. To determine if a relationship existed between BTT scores and
the judged level of FC proficiency.
3. To determine if linguistic performance and/or FC were dependent
on any of the following variables:
(a) etiology
(b) dB loss in better ear
(c) first language in the home
(d) persons at home who can finger spell and/or sign
(e) age when finger spelling first acquired
(f) number of years at Florida School for the Deaf and Blind
(FSDB)
(g) reading level
(h) IQ level
(i) date of birth
(j) race
(k) sex
(l) other impaired family members

CHAPTER III
METHOD AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
This chapter contains the procedures used for subject selection,
the experimental tasks performed by the subjects, reliability procedures,
and the instruments utilized for analysis.
Procedures
Subjects
Thirty students were randomly selected from among those who were
attending the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (FSDB) who met the
following criteria:
1. a hearing loss of 60 dB or greater in the better
ear as the primary deficit
2. deaf from birth or prelingually deafened (before
the acquisition of speech)
3. a performance IQ score of 95 or higher
4. a reading level equivalent to grade three or
higher
5. a monolingual (English) home environment of
English, sign, finger spelling, and/or some
mixture of all three
6. an age range from 14 - 19
7. a score of at least 75% correct on a researcher
developed test of finger spelling ability.
56

57
Criteria one through six were obtained from school records. A
profile of the subjects of this study is in Appendix A.
Finger Spelling Ability
Potential subjects were given a researcher developed test of pic¬
ture naming, by finger spelling, in order to determine their ability
to finger spell. If a subject failed this task he would have been auto¬
matically disqualified from the investigation and another student, pos¬
sessing the desired criteria, would have been randomly selected and
given the Finger Spelling Test. Words ranged in difficulty from the
very easy, everyday ones which would be familiar to a first grader, to
increasingly difficult and less encountered ones. The most difficult
were nonsense pictures where the "names" consisted of letter configura¬
tions uncommon to the English language. Naturally for the nonsense pic¬
tures the subject was shown the written name. See Appendix B for the
test, instructions, procedural protocol, and scoring methods. A passing
criterion level of 75% correct was selected.
Tasks
Each student responded to the graphic form of the BTT and the
manual form of the BTT. They also retold a simple paragraph story in
any manner they preferred. The sequence of these three procedural tasks
was randomized for each subject to minimize the possible order effect.
Each testing session was individually conducted in a quiet room during
regular school hours. The time required for the complete evaluation
procedure ranged from 1 hour to 1 hour and 45 minutes, with a mean time
of 1 hour and 10 minutes. This mean also included the time necessary

58
to make any mechanical adjustments on the instruments utilized, such as
rewinding of the video presentation tape or changing the tape used in
filming the subjects.
BTT Graphic
Each subject responded to 38 questions. The nonsense words and
stimuli were presented on 30 plates which had been made into a booklet
form. In some instances two stimulus items appeared on a single plate.
Instructions were in accordance with the published protocol of the Berry-
Talbott Language Tests I: Comprehension of Grammar (Berry, 1966). The
first two items were reviewed with the subjects until the examiner was
certain that the nature of the task was understood. For succeeding
items the child read the stimulus material, responded graphically on his
answer sheet, and proceeded to the next page. There was no time limit
for this task. Samples of test stimuli, instructions, and answer sheets
may be found in Appendix C.
BTT Manual
From previous visits and conversations with students and staff
at FSDB it was discovered that some of their signs were slightly dif¬
ferent from those which would be used in the manual (visual) presenta¬
tion. Therefore, to avoid possible confusion, a written list of these
signs was presented to each subject before the video viewing. The sub¬
ject provided the examiner with his sign for a particular word and was
given the sign he would see on the video tape.
Before the actual video tape presentation additional instructions
were presented in graphic as well as in signed English form. Because
of the transient nature of finger spelling, it was important that the

59
subjects knew that the exact, correct spelling of the stimuli word was
not important but that some finger spelled response to each item was
expected.
The standard directions, procedures, sentences and nonsense stimuli
utilized for the Graphic BTT were presented on a split-screen 19 inch
video monitor (Sony, CVM 192-U). On one-half of the screen was a pic¬
ture of the nonsense stimuli. This plate remained constant while on
the other half of the screen the examiner used signed English and finger
spelling to communicate the standard graphic stimuli of the BTT. The
only procedural difference between the graphic and manual presentations
was that in the latter task the subject had a 10 second interval to finger
spell his response. There were no repeats of stimulus items once the
test had begun.
The subjects were seated about 5 feet from the monitor. A micro¬
phone was placed in front of the child to record any vocalizations. All
students saw and, if capable of, heard the same video tape film of the
test which had been filmed on a portable video camera (Sony AVC 3210).
Video recordings of the finger spelled responses of all subjects were
made for later scoring.
The signs reviewed prior to the film presentation and additional
instructions are found in Appendix D.
FC Task
The subjects were given a story (Form A-G) from the Gray Oral
Reading Test (GORT) which had an approximate fourth grade level of dif¬
ficulty (Grey, 1967). The students were told to read the story to them¬
selves, and when they felt that they were adequately prepared, to retell

60
the story in any manner they wished. Instructions were presented in
graphic, oral, and signed English form. Video recordings of all stories
were made. If the student inquired about a particular vocabulary word
the examiner explained it. This task placed no time limits on either
the reading of the passage itself or on its communication by the subject.
See Appendix D for the instructions given and the paragraph taken from
the (GORT).
Scoring Criterion
BTT Graphic and Manual
This investigation was concerned with the concept conveyed by cer¬
tain English morphemes and not, as in several previous studies, the
production of particular allomorphs for the same morpheme. Therefore,
any indication that the subject did demonstrate appropriate knowledge
for the required morpheme was scored as correct. For example, "s" and
"es" were both considered as correct responses for the plural, and in
the same manner, "ed" and/or "ied" were considered as correct for the
past tense.
For the diminutive and compound words the adult models of Berko
were utilized. Derived adjectives and nouns, comparatives, superlatives,
and possessives were scored correct only when the traditional English
morphemes were produced. For example, even if the subject displayed in
sign language or finger spelling that he understood the difference be¬
tween the comparative and superlative but failed to finger spell or
write the required "er" or "est" inflections, his responses were scored
as incorrect. No one was penalized for misspellings of the nonsense
word stems.

61
The experimenter scored all Graphic and Manual BTT responses. In
order to establish an index of reliability of the ratings a hearing, col¬
lege student of deaf parents who was familiar with signs and finger
spelling also scored Graphic and Manual BTT items. He was previously
given a short training session so that he would be familiar with the
scoring criterion. These responses were then compared with those of the
investigator.
The tests scored by the second rater were composites of responses
from all of the subjects. The experimenter rank ordered each subject's
test scores for both the Graphic BTT and Manual BTT performances. Graphic
and manual test scores were very disparate for some subjects. Therefore,
it could not be assumed that because someone achieved a certain score
in one medium that he would perform similarly in the other medium.
After rank ordering the two sets of scores, the highest 10 scores of
each medium were designated as the high Graphic and high Manual BTT
groups. The next 10 highest scores for each medium were designated as
the medium Graphic and medium Manual BTT groups. Finally the lowest
scores for each medium were defined respectively as the low Graphic and
Manual BTT groups.
The subjects from each group were assigned from 2 through 4 items
of the total 38 items of the BTT. This procedure resulted in six com¬
posite tests of which three were graphic and three were manual. For
each medium there was a separate test for the high, medium, and low
groups. (The same type of video recorder utilized for the previous
films was again employed for the three new manual films.)
Graphic ratings for the high, medium, and low categories were com¬
pared. There was 1.00agreement between the two raters.

62
Overall manual ratings had an agreement of .95. Manual ratings
for the high category resulted in an agreement of .89. Manual ratings
for both the medium and low categories showed a .97 level of agreement.
The differences in level of agreement between high, and the medium and
low categories is a good illustration of the fleeting nature of finger
spelling. For example, many of the subjects in the high category used
the sign for the possessive which, unless particularly emphasized, is
very difficult to determine as to whether singular or plural possession
is indicated. Hence, a value judgment had to be made. None of the sub¬
jects in the medium and low categories showed knowledge of the posses¬
sive so this value judgment was not necessary.
A normal js-test for difference in proportions indicated that there
was a significant difference between the graphic and manual ratings at
the .05 level with _z being equal to 2.51.
FC Rating
Two groups each containing three judges viewed and rated the stu¬
dents' functional communication stores. All of the judged were fluent
in signing, finger spelling, and English. Since they were also employed
in various capacities with FSDB, all were familiar with any expressions
or signs which might be colloquial to that specific geographical loca¬
tion and population. Each of the groups contained one hearing, one
deaf, and one hard-of-hearing judge. Both groups saw the same 30
stories; however, in order to avoid a possible order effect, the appear¬
ance of the student in each of the two films was randomized. Therefore,
the location of a particular student in Group A's film differed from the
same student's appearance in Group B's film. (After each story the
judges were given a one minute pause to rate their observations.)

63
All of the judges received their instructions (orally, manually,
and graphically) during the same session. However, each group indivi¬
dually scored its own film. Because of the rapidity of the material to
be scored, the two groups saw their same films a second time a few hours
after their first viewing. They were given abbreviated instructions
and were allowed to make changes from their previous observations.
The judges were given a rating sheet which assessed three dimen¬
sions of communication. It was on this sheet where they marked their
observations. Part A assessed overall communicative efficiency and the
quality to convey general concepts on a categorical scale of 1 - 5.
This was the Quality Score.
Part B contained an item analysis for specific main and detail
ideas of the story. Items were scored according to a 3 point system.
A score of 3 indicated the judge was confident that the idea was con¬
veyed in its entirety, a score of 2 indicated that the judge thought
the idea to be partially presented, and a score of 1 indicated that
the judge was certain that the idea was completely absent.
In Part C the ratio of a student's finger spelling to signing
preferences in communication was rated. The scale ranged from 1 (al¬
most total finger spelling) to 5 (almost total signing). (See Appendix F
for instructions and the Functional Communication Evaluation Sheet.)
In order to obtain an index of reliability for the ratings of the
FC Evaluation the following three questions had to be determined:
1. Were there differences between the six correlation
matrices corresponding to each judge?
2. Were there differences in correlation matrices cor¬
responding to each type of judge (Hard-of-Hearing,
Deaf, and Hearing)?

64
3. Was there a difference between the two correlation
matrices corresponding of each group (order effect)
for the judges?
The correlation between Theme and Quality for all three of the
above questions was analyzed by using "Fisher's transformation to ap¬
proximate normality" (Bruning & Kintz, 1968). An "H" (JO test for
homogeneity of correlations (Mendenhall, 1968) was then applied.
The "H" statistic revealed nonsignificant differences: among
the six individual judges, among the type of judge, or between groups
of judges. Furthermore, since each of the tests for the three questions
was performed at the .01 level of significance, the overall sum level
was less than .03. This indicated similar judgments by raters, hearing
type, and group. It can therefore be inferred that for this evaluation
FC ratings were reliable.
Analysis
To determine whether a method of presentation and response (graphic
or manual) would influence the linguistic performances of the deaf a
J^-test for related pairs was utilized (Mendenhall, 1975).
In order to answer questions two and three of the Problem State¬
ment, a single measurement for H3 proficiency was needed so that corre¬
lations between this measurement and Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and demo¬
graphic data could be computed.
The logical measurement for FC would be the average ratings of the
judges on the overall Quality Score. This would be a simple and good
measurement if it could be shown that the judges arrived at the Quality
Score after careful consideration of all factors on the FC Evaluation
Sheet.

65
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Forward Stepwise Procedure
(Service, 1972) selected an 11 variable model for the dependent variable,
Quality. This Stepwise Procedure first selected the variable that pre¬
dicted most of the variance for the dependent variable (in this case,
Quality). The procedure then continued to select the next most important
variable responsible for variance of the dependent variable. The addi¬
tion of each new variable and consequent formation of a new model con¬
tinued until all of the independent variables were included (in this
case, the main and detail ideas and Theme of the FC Evaluation Sheet).
2
Probability levels, R s, and F-ratios for each of the models were also
determined by the Forward Stepwise Procedure.
2
The 11 variable model for Quality had an R of .98 with all factors
except Theme statistically significant at the .01 level, 1^(29,18) =
89.53, f< .01. The significant factors were main topics A,B,D,E, and
details A-F. These factors were needed to predict the Quality Score,
and it appears that the judges, on the average, carefully considered
those factors in determining their Quality Score.
It is thus inferred that the Quality Score is a good measurement
of FC proficiency. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this section
for the SAS model, the identification of the variables chosen, and
their occurrence in the paragraph which the students read.
To determine whether a relationship existed between the BTT scores
(graphic and manual) and the judged level of FC, the variables, as in¬
dicated by the correlation coefficients printed by the SAS, were ob¬
served for significance levels of .05 or higher.
The demographic data (etiology type, dB loss in the better ear,
first language in the home, persons at home who can finger spell and/or

66
sign, age when finger spelling was first acquired, number of years at
FSDB, reading level, IQ, age, race, sex, and other impaired family mem¬
bers) had its significance to the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC
models determined by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of the SAS. For
any of the three models the demographic variables were considered sig¬
nificant at the .05 level or higher.

67
Table 1
Stepwise Regression Model for the Dependent Variable, Quality Score,
as Selected by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of the SAS
R2 = 0.9820
F RATIO = 89.53
PROBABILITY F
0.0001
VARIABLES
F RATIO
PROBABILITY'. F
Theme Score
2.05
0.1690
Main Topic A
7.74
0.0123**
Main Topic B
6.67
0.0188**
Main Topic D
31.14
0.0001**
Main Topic E
11.30
0.0035**
Detail A
10.90
0.0040**
Detail B
8.54
0.0091**
Detail C
38.18
0.0001**
Detail D
6.64
0.0190**
Detail E
9.86
0.0057**
Detail F
17.35
0.0006**
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

68
Table 2
Theme, Main Topics, and Detail Topics from the
Functional Communication Evaluation: Part B, Item Analysis
THEME:
Airplane pilots have many jobs.
MAIN TOPICS DETAIL TOPICS
A:**
transportation between cities
A: **
of people
B:**
of freight
C:**
of mail
B:**
rescues
D:**
at land
D :**
at sea
C:
dropping food
F: **
to hungry people
G:
to hungry animals
D:**
bringing znimals to zoos from the
jungles
E:**
act as traffic police
H:
spot speeding cars
I:
on the highway
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

CHAPTER TV
RESULTS
Introduction
Data concerning the linguistic performance on the Graphic and
Manual BTT are presented in the initial section of this chapter. Corre¬
lational data among Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and judged level of FC
are found in the second section. Particular demographic data are pre¬
sented in the final section. Because the interaction among some of
these variables was of interest, there is some overlap introduced in
the various tables. Consequently, Tables 3 through 8 are collectively
presented at the end of this chapter.
Linguistic Performance on Graphic and Manual BTT
A paired difference t-statistic revealed that there was a signi¬
ficant difference in linguistic performance dependent on graphic or
manual presentations and responses. The -3.59 _t-statistic indicated
a difference in average test scores for the two methods at the .05 level
of significance. The negative _t-statistic indicated that average test
scores for the Graphic method are significantly higher than those for
the Manual method. Table 3 shows the subjects' individual scores for
the Graphic and Manual BTT tasks.
Table 4 contains a description of the graphic and manual perform¬
ances. The range for graphic performances was 5-33 with a mean of
69

70
18.33. The range for manual performance was 4-30 with a mean of 15.93.
The transient nature of finger spelling as well as the timed response
period allowed may be responsible for the better performance with the
graphic medium. Nevertheless, it may be inferred that for linguistic
tasks of this type a graphic presentation is a valid procedural method
for assessing the linguistic ability of the deaf.
Correlations Among Graphic BTT, Manual BTT,
and the Judged Level of FC Proficiency
Correlations among the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and the judged
level of FC proficiency were obtained from the linear regression model
of the SAS. The information in Table 5 indicates a correlation between
Graphic BTT and Manual BTT scores of .79 which is statistically signi¬
ficant at the .01 level.
This is not surprising considering that the same test and protocol
had been utilized with the only manipulated variables being those of
presentation and response. These scores may also be viewed in regard
to the ability of the deaf to perform in a similar manner for two en¬
tirely different communication modes. Thus the elaborate testing proce¬
dures necessary for a visual presentation and response would not be
necessary in order to obtain a measurement of linguistic competence
similar to the one utilized in this study.
Table 5 reveals a correlation of .55 between the Graphic BTT
score and the quality FC score which has a statistically significance
level of .01. Both the Graphic BTT and FC ratings were dependent on
some form of reading ability which may have influenced this correlation
to some extent.

71
The correlation between the Manual BTT scores and quality FC scores
was .31 at a significance level of .09. Thus Manual BTT scores and qual¬
ity FC scores lacked statistical significance at the .05 level. However,
a .09 significance level might suggest to some investigators that Manual
BTT scores should not be completely discounted.
In summary, Graphic and Manual BTT scores were significantly cor¬
related at the .01 level. Similarly, Graphic BTT scores and FC quality
scores were correlated at the .01 level. However, Manual BTT scores
and FC quality scores were not statistically significant at the .05
level. It can therefore be inferred that the Graphic BTT may be used
as a predictor of _FC quality.
Demographic Data
Linear regression models, as selected by the Forward Stepwise
Procedure of the SAS, were used for all of the independent demographic
variables. Each variable was investigated for its contribution to the
following models: the dependent variable Graphic BTT, the dependent
variable Manual BTT, and the dependent variable FC.
The best linear regression model for the Graphic BTT (Table 6)
explained 63% of the total variance in graphic scores; the manual
model (Table 7) explained 60% of the total variance in manual scores;
the FC model (Table 8) explained 80% of the total score variance. Cri¬
terion for entry of a particular demographic variable into a model was
a minimum significance level of .50.
Etiology
There were 19 students who were deaf from birth and 11 who ac¬
quired deafness prelingually. For the combined group of subjects

72
etiology was found to be the following: 13 - unknown, 7 - rubella,
3 - birth trauma, 3 - heredity, 2 - meningitis, 1 - Rh factor, 1 - en¬
cephalitis.
The above seven levels of the variable etiology were analyzed in
a dichotomous-comparison format. For example, the rubella factor was
compared against all of the other six etiologies or the hereditary factor
was compared against all six of the remaining etiological factors.
The factor of heredity was included in the Manual BTT model,
_F(29,23) = 8.45, f< .01. It can then be inferred that heredity signi¬
ficantly contributes to a positive performance on the Manual BTT. This
result further supports findings of previous investigators that deaf
children of deaf parents, who thus have an early exposure to a manual
communication system, perform better than deaf children of hearing
parents who are denied this early exposure.
Encephalitis was included in the FC model, F(29,15) = 5.19,
f < .05. However, there was only one subject whose etiology was that
of encephalitis so the correlation with FC should be assessed with that
factor in mind.
dB Loss
According to Silverman (1971) the term "deaf" is used for chil¬
dren "who do not have sufficient residual hearing to enable them to
understand speech successfully, even with a hearing aid, without special
instruction" (p.399). He used Huizing's classification (1953) which
related loss as expressed by pure-tone audiometry. The suggested
categories pertinent to this study were:

73
Grade III: 60 - 90 dB = severe loss
Grade IV: More than 90 dB = deaf (no speech
understanding ability) (p. 401).
The subjects in this investigation had a dB loss ranging from 62 -
118 (94.97) in the better ear. The obvious conclusion is that all sub¬
jects were severely hearing impaired.
For both the Graphic and Manual BTT models the variable dB loss
was not even included in the model. This would concur with the results
of other investigations which found this variable (for the severely
hearing impaired) to be insignificant for academic success. However,
in the FC model this variable was statistically significant, F(29,15) =
5.90, f <1 .05. Other studies of signing in the deaf have been more con¬
cerned with the properties of the communication medium itself and have
not, to my knowledge, investigated the specific amount of loss once it
was ascertained that the subject was deaf.
Reading Level
The main reading level of the subjects, obtained from the school's
records on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), revealed a score of 5.3
(fifth year, third month) with a standard deviation of 2.3. The indi¬
vidual levels ranged from 1.7 - 9.9.
Reading level was the only variable of statistical significance
on the Graphic BTT 1^(29,19) = 6.47, f reading level was again the most statistically significant variable,
_F(29,23) = 17.59, f <£ .01. The. fact that reading level was also the
most statistically significant variable on the FC model, _F(29,15) =
10.62, f «C. .01, emphasized that this variable was by far the most
powerful for all three tasks which were investigated. Other researchers

74
have also found reading level to be one of the most important variables
for high linguistic performance.
Age When Finger Spelling First Acquired
Finger spelling acquisition ranged from almost at birth (in cases
of deaf children of deaf parents) to age 15. This variable was statisti¬
cally significant in the Manual BTT model, F(29,23) = 4.95, f *£.05.
This significance is in agreement with the data collected by previous
researchers which stressed early exposure to finger spelling for its
maximum benefit for the deaf's communication to be achieved.
Age
The subjects for this investigation ranged in age from 16 - 18.
The median age was 17.13 years with a standard deviation of .50.
Only for the Manual BTT was this variable statistically signifi¬
cant, 1^(29,23) = 7.27, f^ .01. With the subjects' ages so close to¬
gether it is difficult to discern why this should be such a significant
variable and only for the Manual BTT model.
First Language in the Home
English was the primary language in the home for 27 students.
Sign was the primary language for two students, and one student reported
a combination of English and sign as the language of the home.
These three levels of the variable first home language were analyzed
in a dichotomous-comparison format where no level reached the signifi¬
cance level for inclusion in any of the models.

75
Other Hearing Impaired Family Members
From among all of the students in this study only 3 subjects re¬
ported that other members of their immediate family were hearing im¬
paired. This variable lacked significance for all three models. The
low number of subjects included in this variable may be one of the
reasons it was statistically insignificant.
Persons at Home Who Can Finger Spell and/or Sign
The above variable contained three levels which were analyzed in
a dichotomous-comparison format where no level attained any statistical
significance for any model. No manual communication at home was re¬
ported by 10 students, 13 reported some manual communication, and 7 re¬
ported that manual communication was frequent at home.
The lack of significance for the last three variables cited—first
language in the home, other hearing impaired family members, persons at
home who can finger spell and/or sign--may all lack significance for
similar reasons. The subjects in this study were older students who
lived in the institutionalized environment of FSDB where everyone finger
spelled and signed. There would be the possibility that the effect of
the family was replaced by that of a peer group.
Number of Years of Attendance at FSDB
The administrators and school records assured the researcher that
all of the subjects had had some prior educational experience if they
had entered FSDB later than age 4 or 5—which is the earliest program
level for the school. The actual years of attendance at FSDB ranged
from 1 through 12 with a mean of 6.66 years and a standard deviation
of 4.08.

76
This variable was included in both the Graphic BTT and FC models
but at statistically insignificant levels. The fact that years of at¬
tendance was completely excluded from the Manual BTT could be a possible
argument that this variable had no statistical significance relative
to performance on the tasks of this investigation.
m
The subjects' IQ scores, when measured on the performance test
of the Wechsler Test of Intelligence (WISC), yielded a range of 95 - 133
with a mean of 112.53 and a standard deviation of 10.05.
This variable was found to be insignificant for all three models.
Other investigators have also found little significance between IQ and
performance on linguistic tasks.
Race
There were 26 white subjects and 4 black subjects. This variable
was insignificant for all three models; thus it can be inferred that
race was not a significant variable for the tasks of this investigation.
Sex
There were 21 male and 9 female subjects in this investigation.
This variable did not meet the .50 significance level for even entrance
into the three models.
Summary of Results
The summary of results is presented in reference to the specific
goals of this investigation which were presented in the "Statement of
the Problem" section.

77
1. The methods of presentation and response—graphic and manual—
of the BTT did influence the linguistic performance of the deaf. The
Graphic BTT scores were higher than the Manual BTT scores at the statisti¬
cally significance level of .01.
2. Graphic BTT scores and the judged level of FC proficiency
were highly correlated at the statistically significant level of .01.
However, correlations between Manual BTT scores and FC proficiency were
statistically insignificant at the .05 level of confidence. Graphic BTT
scores and Manual BTT scores were both significantly correlated at the
.01 level.
3.The particular demographic variables which significantly in¬
fluenced performance on the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC were:
(a) Graphic BTT
(1)Reading level (significant at the .01 level)
(b) Manual BTT
(1) Reading level (significant at the .01 level)
(2) Etiology—Heredity (significant at the .01 level)
(3) Age (significant at the .01 level)
(4) Age of Learning Finger Spelling (significant at the
.05 level)
(c) FC Rating
(1) Reading Level (significant at the .01 level)
(2) dB Loss (significant at the .05 level)
(3) Etiology—Encephalitis (significant at the .05 level)

04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
78
Table 3
Subjects' Individual Scores for the
Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC Ratings
GRAPHIC BTTa
MANUAL BTTb
FC RATING'
17
18
2.66
13
07
2.33
18
16
3.16
20
19
3.00
19
15
2.66
16
14
1.33
14
10
1.00
33
29
3.33
13
15
2.00
13
12
2.00
16
17
3.16
28
22
4.30
18
17
2.66
18
20
4.00
18
14
2.83
16
05
3.00
14
15
3.83
24
20
2.83
15
08
1.66
19
17
4.00

79
Table 3 - continued
SUBJECT
GRAPHIC BTTa
MANUAL BTTb
FC RATING'
21
27
30
3.00
22
19
19
2.83
23
22
13
4.66
24
05
04
1.00
25
26
21
4.16
26
20
20
1.16
27
17
17
1.50
28
19
15
1.00
29
19
11
4.33
30
18
14
2.33
score out of a possible 38 correct
^score out of a possible 38 correct
average of judges' ratings on a scale from 1-5

80
Table 4
Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores
for the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC Tasks as
Obtained from the Linear Regression Model of the SAS
STANDARD
VARIABLES
MEAN
DEVIATION
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Graphic BTT&
18.9333
5.3777
5.0000
33.0000
Manual BTTb
15.9333
5.9302
4.0000
30.0000
FCC
2.7193
1.1135
1.0000
4.6600
^total of 38 items
total of 38 items
cbased on Quality Score which had a 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good)
scale range

81
Table 5
Correlation Coefficients among
the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT,and FC Scores
as Shown by the Correlation Procedure of the SAS
VARIABLES
GRAPHIC BTT
MANUAL BTT
FC
Graphic BTT
1.00000
0.79545
0.55112
0.00000
0.00010**
0.00160**
Manual BTT
0.79545
1.00000
0.31372
0.00010**
0.00000
0.09140
FC
0.55112
0.31372
1.00000
0.00160**
0.09140
0.00000
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

82
Table 6
Linear Regression Model for the Dependent Variable,
as Selected by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of
Graphic BTT,
the SAS
R2 = 0.6387
F RATIO =3.36
PROBABILITY F =
0.0111
VARIABLES
F RATIO
PROBABILITY^ F
Age of Learning Finger Spelling
1.78
0.1975
Years Attending FSDB
.74
0.4008
Reading Level
6.47
0.0198**
IQ
2.01
0.1727
Race
1.06
0.3160
Etiology - Unknown
2.46
0.1333
Etiology - Rubella
1.29
0.2703
Deaf at Birth
0.55
0.4671
No Manual Communication at Home
2.25
0.1504
Finger Spelling to Sign Ratio
1.06
0.3153
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

83
Table 7
Linear Regression Model for the Dependent Variable, Manual BTT,
as Selected by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of the SAS
R2 = 0.6013
F RATIO =5.78
PROBABILITY F :
0.0009
VARIABLES
F RATIO
PROBABILITY^ F
Age of Learning Finger Spelling
4.93
0.0365*
Reading Level
17.59
0.0003**
IQ
2.14
0.1567
Age
7.27
0.0129**
Etiology - Heredity
8.45
0.0080**
No Manual Communication at Home
1.58
0.2083
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

Table 8
Linear Regression Model for the Dependent Variable, FC
(Utilizing Quality Score as the Unit of Measure),
as Selected by the Forward Stepwise Procedure of the SAS
2
R = 0.8002
F RATIO =4.29
PROBABILITY F =
0.0041
VARIABLES
F RATIO
PROBABILITY^- F
Age of Learning Finger Spelling
fears Attending FSDB
Reading Level
Age
Other Hearing Impaired in Family
Etiology - Heredity
Etiology - Rubella
Deaf at Birth
Some Manual Communication at Home
dB Loss
Finger Spelling to Sign Ratio
0.42
0.5279
0.72
0.4090
10.62
0.0053**
2.12
0.1658
1.03
0.3267
3.49
0.0816
1.39
0.2565
0.66
0.4304
0.96
0.3425
5.90
0.0282*
4.11
0.0608
0.86
0.3687
Etiology - Meningitis

85
Table 8 - continued
R2= 0.8002
F RATIO =4.29
PROBABILITY F
0.0041
VARIABLES
F RATIO
PROBABILITY ‘SF
Etiology - Encephalitis
5.19
0.0378*
Presentation Order of Tasks
1.33
0.2670
* Significant at .05 level
** Significant at .01 level

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Discussion of the results of this investigation is designed so
that the major findings relating to the two specific research questions
(linguistic presentation methods and possible relationships between
specific linguistic scores and the functional communicative effective¬
ness of AMESLAN) are presented first. The influence of demographic
factors is later introduced. Finally, suggestions for language inter¬
vention and implications for future research are presented.
Morphological Assessment
Introduction
The linguistic performance of the deaf as a result of two presenta¬
tion methods was the initial research question. The primary objective
was to determine if written linguistic tasks adequately reflect the
deaf's linguistic knowledge or is their poor performance a reflection
of their difficulty with the medium of presentation rather than with
the material itself?
Graphic and Manual BTT
A paired difference ^-statistic revealed a significant difference
(p^ .05) in linguistic performance dependent on mode of presentation
with the average scores for the graphic method (18.93) significantly
higher than that for the manual method (15.93). It can therefore be
86

87
inferred that for investigations of this type assessments of the compre¬
hension of graphically presented materials provide valid, indeed superior,
indications of linguistic competency of traditional English by the deaf.
Discussion
Among the interesting and plausible hypotheses for the above re¬
sults are error hierarchy, nature of the test format, and specific types
of errors. These topics are discussed in the following section.
Hierarchy of Errors
An analysis of errors for this study revealed a hierarchy of item
difficulty similar to that of Cooper's (1967) investigation (see Chap¬
ter II, Morphological Research). In this investigation, as in Cooper's
(1967), plural nouns and past tense were also found to be the easiest
items and the derivational items the most deviant. The four items which
were missed by more than half of Larson et al.'s (1976) adult models
(derived words: diminutive, compound, ajentive, adjective) were also
incorrect for the vast majority of the FSDB students.
Table 7 shows the morphological hierarchy according to percentages
correct for both the graphic and manual presentations. Table 8 illus¬
trates the percentages correct for each morphological structure accord-
int to the graphic and manual procedures.
Plurals and past tense were apparently the easiest items. Gener¬
ally both graphic and manual presentations followed the same hierarchy
but with the manual scores far more depressed than the graphic scores.
With performance on derived words so poor for both presentations it
would be difficult to make any comparisons between the two groups of
scores. However, the manual presentation did aid some students in the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
88
Table 7
Hierarchy According to Percentages Correct
for Graphic BTT and Manual BTT
GRAPHIC BTT %
CORRECT
ORDER
MANUAL BTT l
i CORRECT
Plurals
.93
1
Plurals
.85
Past Tense
.75
2
Past Tense
.63
Progressive
.33
2.5
Progressive
.18
Possessive
Singular
.25
2.5
Adjective
Superlative
.18
Third Person
Singular
.18
5
Possessive
Plural
.15
Adjective
Superlative
.17
6
Adjective
Comparative
.13
Ad j ective
Comparative
.13
7
Third Person
Singular
.01
Possessive
Plural
.01
8
Possessive
Singular
.008
Derived Word
Nfajentive(-er)]
.13
9.5
Derived Word
N[ajentive(-er
)] .006
Derived Word
Adj ective
.006
10
Derived Word
N(diminutive)
.006
Derived Word
N(diminutive)
.003
11
Derived Word
N(compound)
.002
Derived Word
N(compound)
0
12
Derived Word
Adjective
0

J
Table 8
Percentages Correct for Morphological Structures
for Graphic BIT and Manual BTT
GRAPHIC BTT
STRUCTURE
MANUAL BTT
.93
Plural
.85
.75
Past Tense
.63
.33
Progressive
.18
.30
Comparative Adjectives
.31
.17
Superlative
18
.13
Comparative
13
.26
Possession
.158
.25
Singular
008
.01
Plural
15
.133
Derived Nouns
.014
.13
Ajentive(-er) .
006
0
Compound
, 002 â– 
.003
Diminutive
,006
.006
Derived Adjective
0

90
formation of the compound word (.002 correct) as compared with the graphic
score (0 correct) for the same structure and for plural possession (.15
correct as opposed to .01 correct).
Nature of the Test Format
This section is a comparison between the properties inherent in
the graphic and manual test presentations which could account for the
superior graphic performances.
Age of finger spelling acquisition. Although finger spelling is
employed in classroom instruction at FSDB, the age of finger spelling
acquisition by the subjects varied from early infancy to age 15. The
importance of early exposure to finger spelling and its beneficial im¬
pact on later communication and educational achievement has been well
documented (Hoemann, 1974; Hoemann, Andrews, Florian, Hoemann & Jensema,
1976; Quigley, 1969).
Not only finger spelling, but any systematic, intensive language
exposure at the preschool level has been found beneficial for later
scholastic achievement (Sarachan-Deily & Love, 1974).
Nature of finger spelling. Transient and ephemeral qualities are
characteristic of finger spelling and signed English (Fisher & Husa,
1973). These variables demand much visual alertness and concentration.
It was perceived by the experimenter in this study that in the majority
of cases, if the crucial nonsense stimuli or question was not seen by
the subject, his manual response was incorrect. This was observed for
test items where the subject consistently responded correctly for a
particular structure. Therefore there was little doubt that the student
lacked knowledge for the test item.

91
This ephemeral quality also applies to the production of finger
spelling. Some letters (i.e., z, 1) have several distinctive charac¬
teristics which render them easy to make and to discern. Other letters
and symbols have nearly identical features (i.e., e, s) or very fleeting
markers (i.e., possession) which often render them very difficult to
read. Concentration is demanded not only of the reader but also of the
finger speller to make clear distinctions for his responses. If the
finger speller is careless, it is very easy for the reader to mistake
an "s" for an "e" or to mark a possessive item as plural when the signer
intended singular.
Time limitations. The difficulties mentioned above for finger
spelling and signed English were not present in the graphic test. No
time limit was imposed on this task where the student had the nonsense
stimuli immediately before him. In contrast, the manual video tape re¬
cording had a specific time limit for each response.
Monitor viewing. In order to insure that all subjects saw the
same presentation it was necessary to record the test on video tape.
There could be some differences between observing a live finger spell¬
ing presentation and observing the same presentation on a large monitor.
From the features cited for test format it could be argued that
the manual presentation failed to accurately reflect a student's know¬
ledge of morphological rules when forced to depend solely on a fleeting
visual medium with the additional aids of lip reading skills and residual
hearing.

92
Error Types
Several distinct types of errors were observed for many students
on the graphic and manual presentations. These error types are presented
in the following section.
Erratic. For many items (as in comparative, possessive, and de¬
rived words) it was apparent that the subjects were uncertain as to the
correct morphological inflections. The responses for graphic and manual
presentations for the same item were different, but in both presentations
responses were incorrect and often erratic. In many cases students
merely repeated the nonsense word or substituted a real word for a pic¬
ture of some real object which appeared on the stimulus card. In these
instances mode of presentation had no effect. The student was apparently
unaware of the required response and concept.
Knowledge of concept. In some cases the subjects indicated no
knowledge of the comparative and superlative constructions on the graphic
presentation. However, in the manual presentation there was an indica¬
tion of knowledge of these two concepts. For example, in these cases
the student finger spelled "more liggy" and "even more liggy" for the
comparative and superlative respectively. These responses are equiva¬
lent as to how the concepts comparative and superlative are signed.
Responses of this nature were scored as incorrect as it was the correct
morphological inflection which was desired. However, examples of this
type are an indication that manual presentation can facilitate know¬
ledge or concept recall, albeit not in the traditional English form
where a graphic presentation would not do so.
Sporadic and/or confused responses. Performance on this morpho¬
logical test was frequently sporadic. For example, past tense or plural

93
items would be correctly answered except for one or two. This was ob¬
served for both graphic and for finger spelled responses where the ex¬
aminer felt confident that the subject had observed the stimulus item.
Sporadic knowledge of general information by the deaf has been
observed by classroom teachers. Therefore, simply because mastery of
the superlative is indicated, knowledge of the comparative should not
be assumed.
There was also evidence of confusion for certain structures, as
in the possessive. Several subjects employed "nad's" for the singular
possessive, but no knowledge of plural possession was demonstrated.
Or the superlative adjective would be consistently employed for the
comparative and, depending on the individual subject, would or would
not be correctly utilized for the superlative item.
Another illustration of this confusion was that the subject would
correctly respond for some items and often respond incorrectly for
similar items of the same construction. These incorrect responses
were consistent and not mere haphazard answers.
Hypotheses. These inconsistencies could be interpreted in various
ways. The correct finger spelling of how the comparative and superla¬
tive are signed could be an example of the "language interference" hy¬
pothesis. This is a phenomenon experienced by many of the deaf between
traditional English and some sort of signing system. It can be compared
to the language interference of a young child in a bilingual environment.
The sporadic and confused inconsistencies may be viewed as an
intermediate state that exists prior to the acquisition and consistent
usage of the correct structure. Or, considering the age of the sub¬
jects and the simple structures under scrutiny, the inconsistencies

94
could be attributed to a confused comprehension for a particular struc¬
ture. Yet another hypothesis could utilize some of these errors as
evidence that the deaf were employing two strategies for the same struc¬
ture.
Pressnell (1973) suggested that some differences found in the
sequential order of development for particular verb constructions
could be related to the teaching order in the classroom. Deviations
which coexist with the correct forms of syntactic structures might in¬
dicate that some of the deaf have two or more parallel rules for the
same syntactic structures (Quigley, Smith, & Wilbur, 1974).
In summary the consistency, regularity, and simplicity characteris¬
tic of hearing children's responses was lacking. Cooper (1967) also
found this true for his older deaf female subjects.
Correlations Among Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC Scores
Introduction
The second area of research was concerned with the communicative
effectiveness of the deaf when they were allowed to utilize whatever
signalling system they preferred—finger spelling, AMESLAN, signed
English, gesture, and speech. The specific research qeustion was to
determine the extent of the relationship between the linguistic BTT
scores and a judged level of FC proficiency when the students were
allowed to utilize their preferred method of communication.
Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC Scores
Correlation coefficients of the SAS revealed the Graphic BTT and
Manual BTT scores to be statistically significant at the .01 level.

95
The Graphic BTT and FC scores were also statistically significant at the
.01 level. The Manual BTT and FC scores lacked statistical significance
at the .05 level.
Discussion
In this section the correlation coefficients of the above results
are reviewed. Possible relationships with reading and writing as well
as cognitive implications are presented.
Correlations with Reading and Writing
The fact that analysis revealed a high correlation between the
Manual and Graphic BTT is not too surprising. The only variable which
distinguished the two tests was manner of presentation.
Perhaps the high correlation between the Graphic BTT and the FC^
score could be explained by the fact that both tasks involved reading.
Cooper (1967) found that his morphological test scores were related to
reading achievement although a subsequent investigation indicated that
difficulties in reading test items did not depress test scores. The
reading level of the BTT was very low—about the level of the first
grade. And from an analysis of error patterns it can be concluded that
errors resulted from lack of linguistic knowledge rather than from dif¬
ficulty with the medium.
The paragraph which the subjects read was near the fourth grade
level, but, as the purpose of the investigation was communicative ability,
the investigator, when necessary, signed the story and helped the sub¬
jects with unfamiliar words. It is always difficult to change from one
medium (the graphic paragraph) and measure communication in another
medium (AMESLAN). The question might be posed that it would have been

96
more suitable for the paragraph story to be signed to the subject and
thus possibly avoid confusion transference from one medium to another.
However, it must be remembered that because of the transient nature of
signing, another variable, memory, which the investigator had hoped to
minimize as much as possible, would have become even more important.
Support for this statement may be found in this study where students
did not respond to BTT items where they would have known the answer be¬
cause they missed the stimulus word.
The judges rated the communication effectiveness of most of the
students as slightly below average with the mean score of 2.71. From
previous investigations of the written compositions by the deaf (Quigley,
Smith, & Wilbur, 1974; Russell, Quigley, & Power, 1976), it would be
valid to suppose that if the subjects were instructed to write what they
remembered from the paragraph, the communication effectiveness as judged
by traditional linguistic standards might be evaluated as very far below
average. With one exception the morphological scores of this investiga¬
tion were lower than those obtained by Cooper's (1967) 9 year old hear¬
ing subjects. However, the judges' ratings of FC^ would imply that the
deaf, when allowed to utilize and be evaluated on their own communication
system, can adequately communicate ideas and concepts based on their
scored performance for conveying the main ideas of the Item Analysis of
the paragraph.
Memory for Prose and Cognitive Implications
An important variable in obtaining a measurement of FC is memory.
Several studies have been conducted on memory for prose but none have
been attempted with the deaf. Inferences on prose memory are made from

97
data which utilize short memory units—letters, designs, sentences. All
items in the paragraph story were assigned hierarchical categories ac¬
cording to a theory of Kintsch (1977) (see Section 2, Chapter II).
The selected variables tended to support some of Kintsch's (1977)
findings on preliminary studies with hearing subjects. Superordinates
(main topics) with a mean score of 1.70 (utilizing a 3 point rating
system) were defined best. Subordinates (details) with a mean score
of 1.65 were recalled less often. Kintsch noted that the thematic idea
was the best recalled item in the hierarchy. This was also valid for
the subjects in this study who had a mean score of 2.48 for Theme. The
fact that Theme was recalled so well by the majority of students may
be the reason it lacked statistical significance in the model used to
predict Quality Score.
There is meager information available on prose recall. However,
it appears that for the FC task of this study the ability of the deaf
to remember prose was similar to that of hearing subjects.
Demographic Assessment
Introduction
The demographic data included in this study were reading level,
etiology, age of learning finger spelling, dB loss in the better ear,
age of the subject, first language in the home, persons at home who
can finger spell and/or sign, other impaired family members, number of
years at FSDB, IQ level, race, and sex. The investigator wished to
determine which of the above variables significantly contributed to
performance on the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, and FC^ tasks.

98
Significant Variables
Reading level was the only variable significant for all three
models (.01). It was the only significant factor for the Graphic BTT
model. For the Manual BTT the statistically significant variables were
etiology-heredity (.01), age of the subject (.01), and age of learning
finger spelling (.05). Although many variables were included in the FC
model, the only statistically significant ones were dB loss (.05) and
etiology-encephalitis (.05).
Discussion
All variables that were included in this study are dealt with in
this section. The most significant variables for the three investiga¬
tive tasks are presented first.
Reading Level
This was the most significant variable as it contributed to all
three task measures at the .01 level. This high correlation of reading
level and linguistic performance would be in agreement with the data of
the previous investigations (Anderson, 1974; Anken & Holmes, 1977;
Quigley, Wilbur, & Montanelli, 1974; Russell, Quigley, & Power, 1976;
Scholes et al., in press; Scholes et al. , 1976; Stokoe, 1975; Wilbur
et al., 1975; Wilcox & Tobin, 1974).
This is not surprising since reading level would involve compre¬
hension of written material; therefore, for these subjects the greater
the linguistic sophistication the higher the Graphic BTT and FC rating.
Both of these tasks required some reading ability. The fact that read¬
ing level was also significant for the Manual BTT could be attributed
to the fact that the manners of presentation (finger spelling and signed

99
English) are both visual overlays on traditional English and the manual
responses were scored as to the correct English morphemic response.
The high significance of reading level on all three tasks could also be
attributed to the factor of linguistic sophistication not only for tradi¬
tional English but also in the ability to successfully communicate in
AMESLAN.
Etiology
For this variable seven levels were analyzed in a dichotomous-
comparison format. The seven levels were unknown, rubella, birth
trauma, heredity, meningitis, Rh factor, and encephalitis.
Heredity, significant at the .01 level, was one of the four sta¬
tistically significant variables for the Manual BTT model. Researchers
have found that deaf children of deaf parents usually have a higher
scholastic achievement level than deaf children of hearing parents.
This factor has been attributed to the fact that the deaf children are
immediately given some form of communication system (Bellugi & Fischer,
1972; Cutting & Kavanagh, 1975; Kannapell, 1974; Stokoe, 1975; Vernon &
Koh, 1971).
There were only two deaf students of deaf parents included in
this study. Two other subjects had an etiology diagnosed as heredity,
but these students had deaf siblings not deaf parents.
Encephalitis was significant on the FC rating at the .05 level.
However, there was only one subject with this specific etiology and for
lack of similar findings in other investigations this significance level
and particular etiology should be regarded with some reservations.
Heredity was also included in the FC model but lacked statistical sig¬
nificance.

100
There are a number of possible reasons why other etiologies are
not included in the models or do not appear as significant (as previous
research would suggest). There were only 30 subjects in this study.
The dichotomous-comparison of each type of etiology against all of the
other etiologies may have caused a levelling effect. Or perhaps there
was somewhat of an overlap with one level of etiology and other vari¬
ables in the study. For example, the age of learning finger spelling
might be associated with heredity as well as other variables such as the
number of hearing impaired in the home and/or the frequency of manual
communication. Finally, one of the criteria of the study was that there
be no handicap other than deafness. Therefore, subjects with other
handicaps of etiologies known for associated anomalies, as in rubella,
which might affect performance were automatically eliminated from this
study.
Age of Learning Finger Spelling
This variable was statistically significant in the Manual BTT
model at the .05 level. This result supports other researchers who
have reported that the effectivness of finger spelling is related to
the age at which it is introduced (Hoemann, 1974; Quigley, 1969). The
age range for these subjects was birth to age 15 with a mean of 6.9.
dB Loss
The dB loss in the better ear was not included in the models for
Graphic and Manual BTT scores. Previous researchers and classroom
teachers have discovered that this variable has no influence on the
linguistic and scholastic performance of deaf and hard-of-hearing stu¬
dents (Anderson, 1974; Scholes et al., in press).

101
Surprisingly, dB loss was a statistically significant factor in
the FC model at the .05 level. To this investigator's knowledge, dB
loss has not been included as a variable in AMESLAN communication studies.
The subjects in this study with high FC ratings [3.00 (average) to
5.00 (very good)] had (a) a variety of etiologies, (b) a wide range
of dB loss, and (c) a variety of communication preference styles (signs,
finger spelling, gestures accompanied with or without speech). All of
the subjects had a reading level of 3.2 or higher; however, four sub¬
jects with an FC rating lower than 3.00 also had reading scores higher
than 3.2 This is an intriguing finding which can easily be further
investigated in future AMESLAN communication studies.
Age of the Subjects
This variable was statistically significant (.01) for the Manual
BTT model. Considering the narrow age range and median age of the sub¬
jects (16 - 18 and 17.13, respectively), this was a rather surprising
finding. It would be expected, as in Cooper's (1967) subjects of ages
9 - 19, that age would be important if only for the reason that the
deaf are grossly delayed in the acquisition of some rather elementary
structures. However, with the older subjects in this study some hy¬
pothesis other than mere delay should be entertained for the inferior
performance by these deaf students. Nevertheless, the fact that age
was significant for these students for this particular task is puzzling.
It may be that a difference of two years could affect the subject's
ability to concentrate over an extended period of time on the video
tape presentation. Or it may be that there is a peak in performance
for the coordination of motor, visual, and linguistic skills that does

102
not develop or Is still in the process of developing daring this age
span.
First Language in the Home
There were three levels for this variable. The majority of the
students (27) reported English as the first language in the home, 2
students reported sign, and 1 student reported a combination of the
above communication systems.
Persons at Home Who Can Finger Spell and/or Sign
There were three levels for the above variable. Some manual com¬
munication was reported by 13 students, 10 students reported no manual
communication, and 7 students reported that manual communication was
used frequently at home.
Other Hearing Impaired Family Members
Seven students reported other family members (siblings and parents)
who were also hearing impaired.
These last three variables failed to be of any significance for
the Graphic BTT, Manual BTT, or FC measures. This lack of significance
could be caused by the dichotomous-comparison format of three levels
for the variables first language in the home and persons at home who
can finger spell or sign. However, the variable of other hearing im¬
paired family members, which might have had some overlap with the
variable etiology-heredity, was analyzed on a yes/no format. So ap¬
parently the analysis cannot definitely be assumed to cause a lack of
significance for these variables. It is perhaps more likely that their
lack of significance for home environment and family members may be a

] 03
result of the subjects themselves. These were older students in the
institutionalized environment of FSDB where everyone finger spelled
and signed. Therefore the school and peer group for these subjects
could counteract the effect of the family. These variables might very
well be significant if they were included in a similar study with much
younger subjects in a different environment.
Number of Years of Attendance at FSDB
This variable was statistically insignificant for all three models.
The actual range in years of attendance was 1-12 with a mean of 6.6.
Therefore this factor alone would suggest that many of the students
brought with them an educational background different from that of FSDB.
The earliest level of acceptance at FSDB is around the age of 4
or 5 with perhaps no formal language intervention before this period.
The fact that this variable was completely excluded from the Manual BTT
model could be a possible argument for its lack of statistical signifi¬
cance relative to performance on the tasks of this investigation. With
younger children educated exclusively at FSDB this variable could be
significant on the Manual and Graphic BTT.
IS
IQ was measured on the performance scale of the WISC and was in¬
significant for all three models. As found by previous researchers
there was no significance between IQ and performance on linguistic
tasks by the deaf.
Race and Sex
There were 26 white and 4 black subjects of whom 21 were male and
9 were female. Race and sex were not even included for any of the task

104
models. There is no study to this investigator's knowledge where race
and the linguistic ability of the deaf have been found to be correlated.
The performance of the female subjects of this study, unlike that
of Cooper's (1967) older deaf females, could not be distinguished from
the males' performance. This result could be attributed to a number of
variables including the smaller number and narrower age range for female
subjects in this study.
Implications for Further Research
1. It has been documented that deaf children of deaf parents have
greater scholastic achievement than their deaf peers of hearing parents;
however, this study and other research (Kannapell, 1974) have indicated
that this initial advantage might not continue for slightly more so¬
phisticated syntactic and morphological structures. There may be a point
where ability for more advanced linguistic items no longer gives the
deaf child of deaf parents an advantage for performance on traditional
English structure.
Therefore it would be of interest to give the Graphic and Manual
BTT to younger age groups so that a possible point may be established
where these subjects perform at essentially the same level as the older
subjects in this study.
2. The Grammatic Closure subtest of the ITPA, which has been
found to correlate highly with the BTT, uses real rather than nonsense
words and therefore most children perform better on this subtest than
on a Berko-type test.
Since the deaf are shown to have difficulty with many abstract
forms—as in nonsense words—it would be of interest to see the results

105
(especially on derived words) if the deaf were given the BTT and also
the ITPA subtest.
3. More studies of AMESLAN communication of previously read short
prose selections would help better define and isolate those factors
which may be rated as important in good AMESLAN communication.
4. An extension of the above study would be a comparison and
rating of a written prose passage from memory. This would help indicate
if there was a correlation between writing facility in traditional
English and FC facility in AMESLAN.
5. Cognitive processing by the deaf has been studied for Piagetian-
type tasks, clusterings of nouns, and recall situations. A study of the
type cited in item number 3 would obtain cognitive information about
the deaf's memory for prose. Models other than the one utilized in this
study could be employed and results compared with those found for the
hearing population.
6. In all AMESLAN communication tasks it would be easy and perhaps
important to note the subject's dB loss in the better ear. If enough
information were gathered it would be possible to see if there is any
valid correlation of this variable and AMESLAN communication as was
found in this study.
Suggestions for Language Intervention
A possible indication for classroom instruction would be the si¬
multaneous presentation of oral, signed English, and graphic stimuli.
Naturally the simultaneous graphic presentation would require an elec¬
tronic device capable of representing words and sentences to the class.

106
Such an entirely total approach would hopefully
1. help eliminate ambiguities and lost clues due to the fleeting
nature of finger spelling and signed English
2. help eliminate any crossover interferences of manual presenta¬
tions based on English syntax and the AMESLAN communication system
3. utilize the visual medium for maximum concept formation.
Periodic reassessment for specific morphological and syntactical
structures would hopefully
1. precisely define deviant areas
2. give information as to types of errors and thus present evi¬
dence and insight for possible modification of instructional format.
An emphasis on the positive aspects of bilingual language might
be extremely helpful. For example, the students could be capable of
performing the same task under two separate conditions—AMESLAN and
signed English. This would, in effect, make the student bilingual and
more aware of the differences between written English and AMESLAN.

APPENDIX A
SUBJECT PROFILE

There were 30 subjects of whom there were 21 males and 9 females.
Of the males 19 were white and 2 were black. There were 7 white and 2
black females.
VARIABLES
dB Loss
62 - 118
(94.97)
Deafness
birth = 19
prelingual = 11
Performance IQ
95 - 133
(112.53)
Reading Level
1.7 - 9.9
(5.30)
Language in the Home
English = 27
Signs and finger spelling = 2
English, signs, and finger spelling = 1
Age
16 - 18
(17.13)
Finger Spelling Test
93% - 100% correct
(98.05)
108

APPENDIX B
FINGER SPELLING TEST, STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS
PROTOCOL INSTRUCTIONS, AND SCORING SYSTEM

FINGER SPELLING TEST
Student
Grade
Date of Birth
1
BOX
5
4
3
2
1
Total Score
2
MAN
5
4
3
2
1
it 5
3
HOUSE
5
4
3
2
1
//4
4
FENCE
5
4
3
2
1
it 3
5
TREE
5
4
3
2
1
it 2
6
MONKEY
5
4
3
2
1
itl
7
CUP
5
4
3
2
1
Examiner
8
BASKET
5
4
3
2
1
Date
9
CLOWN
5
4
3
2
1
10
BALLOON
5
4
3
2
1
11
EATING
5
4
3
2
1
12
PULLING
5
4
3
2
1
13
STANDING
5
4
3
2
1
14
RIDING
5
4
3
2
1
15
WASHING
5
4
3
2
1
16
AQUARIUM
5
4
3
2
1
17
SURF
5
4
3
2
1
18
CLERK
5
4
3
2
1
19
LIQUID
5
4
3
2
1
20
INSTRUMENTS
5
4
3
2
1
21
HARBOR
5
4
3
2
1
22
FURNITURE
5
4
3
2
1
110

Ill
FINGER SPELLING TEST - continued
23
LOCKET
5
4
3
2
1
24
THERMOMETER
5
4
3
2
1
25
PHONOGRAPH
5
4
3
2
1
26
FWKIG
5
4
3
2
1
27
TLUZ
5
4
3
2
1
28
DBRAI
5
4
3
2
1
29
GITWL
5
4
3
2
1
30
HPTG
5
4
3
2
1
31
UOWA
5
4
3
2
1

112
STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS
I will show you some pictures, and you will finger spell the name.
Some of these pictures are very funny. If you do not know the name,
I will show you the written name, and you will finger spell this name
to me.

PROTOCOL INSTRUCTIONS
The subject is given his instructions in both written and signed
English form. Use item no. 1 as a test item. Also show the written
word box so that he may know what to expect when he is unable to cor¬
rectly name the picture. (For the nonsense pictures he must always be
shown the name.) Do not penalize if the subject gives an inappropriate
response as in "boy" for the desired word "standing." You may ask "What
is he doing?" or other questions for the particular picture. However,
do not lose too much time with this procedure as the goal of the test
is assessment of finger spelling ability. Show the student the written
word, allow for an appropriate time for it to be read, and, if necessary,
ask again for the desired finger spelled response.

.114
SCORING SYSTEM
Scoring is on a 5 point scale of proficiency with only numbers 5
and 4 as ultimately considered correct.
5 = fluent, smooth, correct flow of letters with no apparent dif¬
ficulty
4 = labored, hesitant, yet correct flow of letters and/or self¬
corrections
3 = fluent, smooth flow with only 1 letter incorrect
2 = expressive difficulty and/or approximately one-half of the
letters inappropriately used
1 = only 1 letter of the test word used correctly
If any student scores below a 5 on any of the items 1 - 10, then
the test may be discontinued at that point, and he may no longer be con¬
sidered as an appropriate subject for this study.
Passing criteria is a total test score of 75% or above.

APPENDIX C
TEST EXAMPLES, INSTRUCTIONS,
AND ANSWER SHEET

TEST EXAMPLES
PLATE III
THIS IS A NAD.
WHO KNOWS HOW TO TROM?
HE IS TROMMING.
HE DID THE SAME THING YESTERDAY.
WHAT DID HE DO YESTERDAY?
YESTERDAY HE
Berry, p. 6
PLATE XIX
THIS IS A TASS.
WHO KNOWS HOW TO GIZZLE?
HE IS GIZZLING.
HE DOES IT EVERYDAY.
EVERYDAY HE •
Berry, p. 22
116

117
INSTRUCTIONS
The teacher says to the child: "I want to show you some funny
pictures. I will tell you something about each picture, and then I want
you to help me by finishing the last sentence. This is the way we play
the game" (Berry, p. 3). (Demonstrate with Plates I and II.)

118
ANSWER
SHEET
Name
Presentation order
Hr. of testing
WRITTEN PRESENTATION
VISUAL PRESENTATION
Plates
Plates
I
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI ÃœQ L2J
VI (1) (2)
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
X
X
XI
XI
XII
XII
XIII
XIII
XIV
XIV
XV
XV
XVI
XVI
XVII
XVII
XVIII
XVIII
XIX
XIX
XX
XX
XXI m (2) XXI (1) (2)

119
ANSWER SHEET - continued
WRITTEN
PRESENTATION
VISUAL
PRESENTATION
Plates
Plates
XXII
XXII
XXIII
(1)
(2)
XXIII
(1)
(2)
XXIV
(1)
(2)
XXIV
(1)
(2)
XXV
(1)
(2)
XXV
(1)
(2)
XXVI
XXVI
XXVII
(1)
(2)
XXVII
(1)
(2)
XXVIII
(1)
XXVIII
(1)
XXIX
(1)
(2)
XXIX
(1)
(2)
XXX
(1)
(2)
XXX
(1)
(2)

APPENDIX D
SIGNS REVIEWED AND
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

SIGNS REVIEWED
1.
there
2.
another
3.
knows
4.
same
5.
thing
6.
yesterday-
7.
house
8.
lives
9.
what
10.
this
11.
he
12.
do
13.
did
14.
the
121

122
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
I will show you a film. Many of the words and pictures are funny.
You will watch the TV and afterwards finger spell the answer to me.
Some pictures will have only one answer. Other pictures will have two
answers. Do not worry if you cannot remember all of the letters. Just
try to give an answer for all of the pictures, and remember to be care¬
ful about your finger spelling.

APPENDIX E
INSTRUCTIONS AND
STORY PARAGRAPH

INSTRUCTIONS
I will give you something to read. Read it. Take your time.
Afterwards I will take the paragraph away. You will tell me about what
you read. You can speak, you can finger spell, you can sign. You can
tell me about the story in any way you want.
124

125
STORY PARAGRAPH
Form A-6
Airplane pilots have many important jobs. They fly passengers,
freight, and mail from one city to another. Sometimes they make danger¬
ous rescues in land and sea accidents, and drop food where people or
herds are starving. They bring strange animals from dense jungles to
our zoos. They also serve as traffic police and spot speeding cars
on highways.
(Gray, p. 4)

APPENDIX F
INSTRUCTIONS,
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECOND VIEWING,
AND FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION EVALUATION SHEET

INSTRUCTIONS
You will see a set of 30 stories told by 30 different students.
The students will retell a story which they have previously read. You
have a copy of this story in front of you. After each story you will
have about a minute to fill in the Evaluation Sheet before you. You
have 30 numbered sheets. The number on the top of the sheet should cor¬
respond to the number that appears on the screen with the student. After
a break you will see the film a second time.
There are three parts for the evaluation:
Part A: Quality of Conveyance of the General Concept
Given that you already know what the story was about, how well do
you think the overall general concept and basic idea of the para¬
graph was displayed?
1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = good
5 = very good
Part B: Item Analysis
Read the 17 items. If the entire fact was present, check box
no. 3. If the entire fact vías not presented, check box no. 2
after each item. If the fact was not presented, check box no. 1
after each item.
127

128
INSTRUCTIONS - continued
Part C: Finger Spelling and Sign Ratios
Circle the number which most aptly describes the student's particu
lar style of communicating.
1 = most finger spelling
2 = more finger spelling than signing
3 = equal amounts of finger spelling and signing
4 = more signing than finger spelling
5 = mostly signing
Please circle the number which best describes your own particular know¬
ledge of the student.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECOND VIEWING
You will now see the same stories again. You have your own Evalua¬
tion Sheets before you. If after seeing a story you wish to change a
score, mark the new score with a red pencil. Do not erase your previous
score.

130
FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION EVALUATION SHEET
Student No.
A. QUALITY OF CONVEYANCE FOR THE GENERAL CONCEPT
1 2 3 4 5
very poor poor average good very good
B. ITEM ANALYSIS
12 3
1. Airplane pilots have many jobs
2. transportation
3. between cities
4. of people
5. of freight
6. of mail ____ _____
7. rescues
8. at land __
9. at sea
10. dropping food
11. to hungry people
12. to hungry animals _____
13. bringing animals to zoos
14. from the jungles
15. act as traffic police _____ ___
16. spot speeding cars
17.
KEY
3 = entire fact
presented
2 = fact par¬
tially
presented
1 = fact omitted
on the highway

131
FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION EVALUATION SHEET - continued
C. FINGER SPELLING AND SIGNING RATIOS
1 = mostly finger spelling
2 = more finger spelling than signing
3 = nearly equal amounts of finger spelling than signing
4 = more signing than spelling
5 = mostly signing
How well do you know this student?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all
very well

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alterman, A. T. Language and the education of children with early pro¬
found deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 1970, 115, 420-428.
Anderson, M. W. Psycholinguistic abilities and academic achievement
of hard of hearing students (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975,
36, 1163B. (University Microfilms No. 392-0327.)
Anisfeld, M. & Tucker, R. G. English pluralization rules of six-year-
old children. Child Development, 1967, 38^, 1201-1207.
Anken. J. R. & Holmes, D. W. Use of adapted "classics" in a reading
program for deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 1977,
122, 8-13.
Bellugi, U. & Fischer, S. A comparison of sign language and spoken
language. Cognition, 1972, 1, 173-200.
Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. The signs of language. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, in press.
Berko, J. The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 1958, 14,
150-177.
Berry, M. F. Berry-Talbott language tests I: Comprehension of grammar.
4332 Pinecrest Road, Rockford, Ill., 1966.
Blanton, R. L., Nunnally, J. C., & Odom, P. B. Graphemic, phonetic,
and associative factors in the verbal behavior of deaf and hear¬
ing subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1967, 10,
225-231.
Bode, L. Communication of agent, object, and indirect object in signed
and spoken language. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1974, 39^, 1151-
1158.
Brannon, J. B., Jr. Linguistic word class in the spoken language of
normal, hard-of-hearing, and deaf children. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 1968, 11, 279-296.
Brannon, J. B., Jr. & Murry, T. The spoken syntax of normal hard-of-
hearing, and deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Re¬
search, 1966, 9^, 604-610.
132

133
Bruning, J. L. & Kintz, B. L. Computational handbook of statistics.
Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Company, 1968.
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. Chapter 2: Comprehension. In J. Kagan
(General Ed.), Psychology and language: An introduction to psycho¬
linguistics . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.
and . Chapter 4: Memory for prose. In J. Kagan
(General Ed.), Psychology and language: An introduction to psycho¬
linguistics . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.
Collins, A. M. & Quillian, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8^ 240-247.
Cooper, R. L. The ability of deaf and hearing children to apply mor¬
phological rules. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1967,
10, 77-86.
Cutting, J. E. & Kavanagh, J. F. On the relationship of speech to lan¬
guage. ASHA, 1975, 1]_, 500-505.
Davis, J. & Blasdell, R. Perceptual strategies employed by normal¬
hearing and hearing-impaired children in the comprehension of sen¬
tences containing relative clauses. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 1975, 281-295.
Dever, R. B. A comparison of the results of a revised version of Berko's
test of morphology with the free speech of mentally retarded chil¬
dren. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1972, 1_5, 169-178.
Dever, R. B. & Gardner, W. I. Performance of normal and retarded boys
on Berko's test of morphology. Language and Speech, 1970, 13,
162-181.
Fisher, C. G. & Husa, F. A. Finger spelling intelligibility. American
Annals of the Deaf, 1973, 118, 508-510.
Fry, D. B. The development of the phonological system in the normal
and deaf child. In F. Smith & G. A. Miller (Eds.), The genesis
of language: A psycholinguistic approach. Cambridge, Mass.:
M. I. T. Press, 1966.
Furth, H. G. Linguistic deficiency and thinking: Research with deaf
subjects. Psychology Bulletin, 1971, ^76, 68-72.
. Thinking without language: Psychological implications of
deafness. New York: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1966.
Goldberg, J. P. & Bordman, M. B. The esl approach to teaching English
to hearing-impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 1975,
120, 22-27.

134
Goodnow,* J. Problems in research on culture and thought. In D. Elking &
J. Flavelle (Eds.), Studies in cognitive development. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1969.
Gray, W. S. Grey oral reading tests. New York: Bobbs-Merril Company,
Inc., 1967.
Hoemann, H. W. Deaf children's use of fingerspelling to label pictures
of common objects: A followup study. Exceptional Children, 1974,
40, 519-520.
Hoemann, H. W., Andrews, C. E., Florian, V. A., Hoemann, S. A., & Jensema,
C. J. The spelling proficiency of deaf children. American Annals
of the Deaf, 1976, 121, 489-493.
Hollis, J. H. & Carrier, J. K., Jr. Research implications for communi¬
cation deficiencies. Exceptional Children, 1975, _41, 406-412.
Ivimey, G. P. The development of English morphology: An acquisition
model. Language and Speech, 1975, JJ3, 120-144.
Jones, L. V., Goodman, M. F., & Wepman, J. M. The classification of
parts of speech for the characterization of aphasia. Language
and Speech, 1963, j5, 94-107.
Kannapell, B. M. Bilingualism: A new direction in the education of
the deaf. Deaf American, 1974, 26^ 9-15.
Kintsch, W. Chapter 4: Reading comprehension as a function of test
structure. In A. S. Reber & D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a
psychology of reading: The proceedings of the CUNY conferences.
Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1977.
Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. The Illinois test of psycholinguistic
abilities (Rev. Ed.). Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois
Press, 1968.
Larson, G. W., Summers, P. A., & Jacquot, W. S. Analysis of responses
to the Berry-Talbtt. Journal of Communication Disorders, 1976,
_9, 261-267.
Lennenberg, E. H. The natural history of language. In F. Smith & G. A.
Miller (Eds.), The genesis of language: A psycholinguistic ap¬
proach. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press, 1966.
Mendenhall, W. Introduction to linear models and the design and analysis
of experiments. Belmont, Calif.: Duxbury Press, 1968.
. Introduction to probability and statistics (4th ed.).
North Scltuate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1975.
Menyuk, P. Sentences children use.
1969. "
Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press,

135
Morkovin, B. Language in the general development of the preschool deaf
child: A review of research in the Soviet Union. ASHA, 1968,
10, 195-199.
Morton, D. Summary of a report on education of the deaf submitted to
the secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
ASHA, 1965, 1, 108-111.
Myklebust, H. R. The psychology of deafness. New York: Gruñe & Stratton,
1964.
Newfield, M. U. & Schlanger, B. The acquisition of English morphology
by normal and educable mentally retarded children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 1968, JJ., 693-706.
Odom, P. & Blanton, R. Phrase learning in deaf and hearing subjects.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1967, JJ3, 600-605.
Pelson, R. 0. & Prather, W. F. Effects of visual message-related cues,
age, and hearing impairment on speech reading performance. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 1974, 17, 518-525.
Pettit, J. M. & Gillespie, J. D. A study of the morphological responses
from children three-eight years of age on sentence completion tests
using nonsense and meaningful words. Paper presented at the meet¬
ing of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Washington,
D. C., November, 1975.
Pressnell, L. M. Hearing-impaired children's comprehension and produc¬
tion of syntax in oral language. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 1973, JJ3, 12-21.
Quigley, S. P. The influence of finger spelling on the development of
language, communication, and educational achievement in deaf chil¬
dren . Urbana, Ill.: Institute for Research on Exceptional Chil¬
dren, 1969.
Quigley, S. P. Montanelli, D. S., & Wilbur, R. B. Some aspects of the
verb system in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 1976, _19, 536-549.
Quigley, S. P. & Power, D. J. The development of syntactic structure
in the language of deaf children. Urbana, Ill.: Institute for
Research on Exceptional Children, 1972.
and . Deaf children's acquisition of the passive
voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1973, JJ), 5-11.
Quigley, S. P., Smith, N. L., & Wilbur, R. B. Comprehension of rela¬
tivized sentences by deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hear¬
ing Research, 1974, 17, 325-341.

136
Quigley, S. P., Wilbur, R. B., Montanelli, D. S. Question formation
in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 1974, 699-713.
Raviv, S., Sharan, S., & Strauss, S. Intellectual development of deaf
children in different educational environments. Journal of Com¬
munication Disorders, 1973, 6^, 29-36.
Russell, W. K., Quigley, S. P., & Power, D. J. Linguistics and deaf
children: Transformational syntax and its applications. Washing¬
ton, D. C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 1976.
Sarachan-Deily, A. B. & Love, R. J. Underlying grammatical rule struc¬
ture in the deaf. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1974,
17, 689-698.
Schein, J. Deaf students with other disabilities. American Annals of
the Deaf, 1975, 120, 92-99.
Schlesinger, I. M. The grammar of sign language and the problems of
language universals. In J. Morton (Ed.), Biological and social
factors in psycholinguistics. London: Logos Press, 1971.
Scholes, R. J., Cohen, M., & Brumfield, S. Some possible causes of
syntactic deficits in the congenitally deaf English user. American
Annals of the Deaf, in press.
Scholes, R. J., Tanis, D. C., & Anderson, M. A. Comprehension of double¬
object constructions by hard-of-hearing subjects. Lektos, 1976,
n, i-i2.
Service, J. A user's guide to the statistical analysis system. Raleigh,
N. C.: Student Supply Stores, North Carolina State University,
1972.
Shriner, T. H. & Miner, L. Morphological structures in the language
of disadvantaged and advantaged children. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 1968, 11, 605-610.
Silverman, S. R. The education of deaf children. In L. E. Travis (Ed.),
Handbook of speech pathology and audiology. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1971.
Sinclair-De-Zwart. Developmental psycholinguistics. In D. Elkind &
J. Flavelle (Eds.), Studies in cognitive development. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1969.
Stokoe, W. C. The use of sign language in teaching English. American
Annals of the Deaf, 1975, 120, 417-429.
Tomblin, B. J. Effect of syntactic order on serial-recall performance
of hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 1977, jM), 421-429.

137
Tweney, R. D. & Hoemann, H. W. The development of semantic associations
in profoundly deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Re¬
search, 1973, 16, 309-318.
Tweney, R. D., Hoemann, H. W., & Andrews, C. E. Semantic organization
in deaf and hearing subjects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Re¬
search , 1975, 4^ 61-73.
Vernon, M. Current etiological factors in deafness. American Annals
of the Deaf, 1968, 133, 106-115.
Vernon, M. & Koh, S. D. Effects of oral preschool compared to early
manual communication on education and communication in deaf chil¬
dren. American Annals of the Deaf, 1971, 116, 569-573.
Vogel, S. A. Morphological ability in normal and dyslexic children.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, Ml, 41-49.
Wilbur, R. B., Quigley, S. 0., & Montanelli, D. S. Conjoined structures
in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 1975, 18, 319-335.
Wilcox, J. & Tobin, H. Linguistic performance of hard-of-hearing and
normal-hearing children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
1974, 17, 286-293.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Shannon Maureen Brumfield was born in New Orleans, Louisiana,
where she lived with her parents and younger brother and sister—Fred
and Mary Kathleen (Kaki). She graduated from Metairie Park Country Day
School.
Ms. Brumfield attended Universite Laval, Quebec, Universidad
Ibero-Americana, Mexico City, D.F., Tulane University, New Orleans,
and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Speech Pathology from
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
After obtaining her Master of Arts degree in Speech Pathology
from Temple University, Philadelphia, she worked for a year for the
Upper Darby School District, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. She returned
to New Orleans where, in addition to her administrative duties as rank
teacher, she worked with students in a school for the deaf. She had
always been interested in language disorders, and it was experience in
this environment that made her acutely aware of the unique difficulties
of the deaf. She was also an instructor at Our Lady of Holy Cross Col¬
lege where she taught courses in anatomy and physiology of the speech
and hearing mechanism and the psychology of deafness.
In September, 1974, she began her doctoral program at the Uni¬
versity of Florida where her area of major interest in speech pathology
was language disorders in deaf and aphasic populations. This was com¬
plemented by a split minor in linguistics and psychology.
133

139
Ms. Brumfield has received the Certificate of Clinical Competence
in Speech Pathology from the American Speech and Hearing Association,
License in Speech Pathology from the State of Louisiana, and is certified
by the Council on Education of the Deaf. She also holds teaching certi¬
ficates for the states of Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

I certify that I
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
1 certify that I
conforms to acceptable
adequate, in scope and
Doctor of Philosophy.
have read this study and that in my opinion it
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
^
Edvard C. Hutchinson, Chairman
Associate Professor of Speech
have read this study and that in my opinion it
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Robert J. Scholes, Cochairman
Professor of Speech
have read this study and that in my opinion it
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully'
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Ira's. Fischler
Assistant Professor of Psychology
have read this study and that in my opinion it
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
quality', as a dissertation for the degree of
Thomas B. Abbott
Professor of Speech

I certify that 1 have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
'Joseph*. Sever, Jr.
Assistant Professor Speech
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Depart¬
ment of Speech in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate
Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
June IS78
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08554 1281