Language Assessment Tools for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Learners
This paper reviews three language assessment instruments used with deaf and hard of hearing learners: the Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision (Arizona-4); the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA); and the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, Fourth Edition (TACL-4). For each instrument, the paper summarizes key details including purpose, target population, age range, skills tested, administration format, scoring type, and a personal evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. The paper concludes by comparing the three tools across oral, sign language, and auditory dimensions, and distinguishes between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing approaches.
- Introduction: Why assessment matters for deaf learners
- Report 1: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision (Arizona-4): Articulation and phonology tool overview and evaluation
- Report 2: American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA): ASL proficiency screening instrument for deaf children
- Report 3: Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, Fourth Edition (TACL-4): Receptive language assessment for oral communication difficulties
- Conclusion and Comparison of Assessment Instruments: Comparing all three tools and norm-referenced testing
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Consistent parallel structure across all three instrument reports makes the comparison easy to follow and professionally organized.
- Each instrument profile covers the same categories (purpose, population, age range, skills, administration, scoring, and evaluation), giving readers a reliable framework for direct comparison.
- The concluding section synthesizes the three instruments meaningfully by mapping each to a communication modality (oral, sign language, auditory/combined) and introduces the norm-referenced vs. criterion-referenced distinction as a unifying analytical lens.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates structured comparative analysis of assessment instruments. By applying a fixed evaluative template to each tool, the author ensures that all relevant technical and practical dimensions are addressed consistently. The personal evaluation sections show applied critical thinking, moving beyond description to weigh the practical implications of each instrument's design for a specific learner population.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing the importance of assessment for deaf and hard of hearing learners. Three report sections follow, each profiling one assessment instrument in a standardized bullet-point format. A concluding section compares all three instruments, identifies their communication modality focus, and situates them within the broader norm-referenced vs. criterion-referenced framework. A reference list closes the paper.
Introduction
Assessment is a critical element of education, as it allows for the monitoring of learning, the creation of educational programs, and the identification of students who require specific services. For deaf and hard of hearing learners, participating in meaningful educational tests is a multifaceted and complex process (Pizzo & Chilvers, 2019). Assessments that are designed well support growth and learning, while poorly and inaccurately designed assessments have the potential to cause wrong decision-making in schools for deaf and hard of hearing learners. This report presents three language assessment instruments for deaf and hard of hearing learners: the Arizona™-4: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale™, Fourth Revision; the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA); and the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, Fourth Edition (TACL-4).
Report 1: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision (Arizona-4)
Name of Test: Arizona™-4: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale™, Fourth Revision
Author(s): Fudala, Janet Barker, and Stegall, Sheri
Publisher: Western Psychological Services
Date of Publication: 2017
Purpose of Test: The primary purpose of this assessment tool is to evaluate articulatory and phonological capabilities for the target age bracket. The Arizona-4 is used for the measurement of speech intelligibility, phonological impairment, and articulatory impairment.
Secondary purposes of the instrument are to:
Target Population: Individuals who need speech and language services within a clinical setting and for whom treatment plans must be designed and developed.
Target Age Range: 18 months to 21 years, 11 months
Skills/Knowledge Tested: Word articulation, phonology, and sentence articulation
Test Administration Format: Individually administered, manual
Length of Time Required: 5–20 minutes
Type of Data Obtained: The Arizona-4 provides five types of scores:
Personal Evaluation — Strengths: This assessment instrument provides clinicians and educators with a quick, reliable, and well-standardized measure of language-sound articulation that helps users identify individuals requiring articulation and phonological services. The kit is available in various packages with varying pricing to suit different uses and needs (Fudala, 2000). The tool also includes supplemental qualitative tasks that support in-depth interpretation of scores, helping clinicians develop personalized treatment plans.
Personal Evaluation — Weaknesses: Interpreting the scores may be difficult for individual teachers, parents, and examinees. An experienced clinician will typically be required to interpret the report.
Report 2: American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA)
Name of Test: The American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA)
Author(s): Maller, Susan J.; Singleton, Jenny L.; Supalla, Samuel J.; and Wix, Tina
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
Date of Publication: 1999
Purpose of Test: The purpose of the ASL-PA was to develop an assessment tool that determines the level of American Sign Language (ASL) skills in deaf and hard of hearing children and examines their acquisition process. Additionally, this instrument seeks to assess a wide range of linguistic structures within ASL. The goals of the ASL-PA are to:
Target Population: Non-native, elementary school-aged children who are deaf or hard of hearing
Target Age Range: 6–12 years
Skills/Knowledge Tested: Morphological processes, linguistic processes, semantic processes, syntactic processes, and narrative abilities in ASL
Test Administration Format: Individual, manual
Length of Time Required: 30 minutes to administer; 1–2 hours to code and score
Type of Data Obtained: The ASL-PA is designed to identify linguistic structures. Scoring focuses on eight morphosyntactic structures of American Sign Language:
Personal Evaluation — Strengths:
Personal Evaluation — Weaknesses:
Conclusion and Comparison of Assessment Instruments
This discussion covers three assessment instruments: (1) the Arizona™-4: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale™, Fourth Revision; (2) the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA); and (3) the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, Fourth Edition (TACL-4). These instruments were selected to represent the various aspects of deaf and hard of hearing communication: oral, sign language, and both. The Arizona-4 was selected to represent the oral aspect, the ASL-PA was selected to represent the sign language aspect, and the TACL-4 was selected to represent auditory and sign language dimensions. All three tests can be administered individually and each is accompanied by a manual. However, scoring each test is complex, as an experienced professional is required to interpret the results.
Assessment tests can be either norm-referenced or criterion-referenced. All three tests included in this paper are norm-referenced. Norm-referenced tests typically cover a broad range of content, but often there is a mismatch between what is taught and what is tested (Bond, 1996). Norm-referenced tests are used to compare an individual's performance to that of a group. Criterion-referenced assessments, by contrast, are used to determine how well an examinee has mastered a particular learning objective (Bond, 1996). In criterion-referenced testing, an examinee's performance is judged by how closely it matches a predetermined criterion, rather than by how the student compares to others.
Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 5(1), 2.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (2014). Test for auditory comprehension of language (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E., & Allen, E. A. (2014). TEXL: Test of expressive language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Fudala, J. B., & Stegall, S. (2017). Arizona-4: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision. Western Psychological Services.
Fudala, J. B. (2000). Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Haug, T. (2005). Review of sign language assessment instruments. Sign Language & Linguistics, 8(1–2), 61–98.
Maller, S., Singleton, J., Supalla, S., & Wix, T. (1999). The development and psychometric properties of the American Sign Language Proficiency Assessment (ASL-PA). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(4), 249–269.
Pizzo, L., & Chilvers, A. (2019). Assessment of language and literacy in children who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing. Education Sciences, 9(3), 223.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.