Adaptação e validade de conteúdo do instrumento de percepção do contraste mínimo para a Língua de Sinais Chilena
Adaptation and content validity of the minimal contrasts perception instrument to Chilean Sign Language
Carlos González Herrera; Themis Maria Kessler; Karina Carlesso Pagliarin
Resumo
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Purpose: to adapt and assess content validity of the the Minimal Contrasts Perception instrument to Chilean sign language (ChSL).
Methods: this study was conducted in seven stages: stage 1: identification of minimal contrast pairs in sign language. Stage 2: Jugment by four expert judges. Stage 3: Drawings creation. Stage 4: the pairs were assessed by non-expert judges. Stage 5: development of test materials. Stage 6: a video recording of the test stimuli was produced. Stage 7: a pilot study was conducted.
Results: in Stage 1, 69 minimal contrast pairs were identified. In Stage 2, the judges achieved acceptable agreement rates on 46 (CVR ≥ 0.95; AC1=0.659). After assessing their relevance and presence in children’s vocabulary, the judges selected 29 pairs. This was followed by an assessment of representativeness, which narrowed down the stimuli to 24 pairs. In Stage 3, drawings of the 24 pairs were created. Non-specialist judges in Stage 4 revealed the need for six pairs to be re-drawn. Stages 5 and 6, the illustrations were adjusted, and a video was recorded to display the test instructions. In Stage 7, the pilot sample understood and completed the test successfully.
Conclusion: the instrument was adapted and displayed adequate content validity.
Keywords
Referências
1 Stokoe WC Jr. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005;10(1):3-37.
2 Ortega G, Morgan G. Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: the influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Lang Learn. 2015;65(3):660-88.
3 Mann W, Roy P, Morgan G. Adaptation of a vocabulary test from British Sign Language to American Sign Language. Lang Test. 2016;33(1):3-22.
4 Newman AJ, Supalla T, Hauser PC, Newport EL, Bavelier D. Prosodic and narrative processing in American Sign Language: an fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2010;52(2):669-76.
5 Fenlon J, Schembri A, Rentelis R, Vinson D, Cormier K. Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: the influence of text type. Lingua. 2014;143:187-202.
6 Simms L, Baker S, Clark MD. The standardized visual communication and sign language checklist for signing children. Sign Lang Stud. 2013;14(1):101-24.
7 Cooper R. The method of meaningful minimal contrasts in functional articulation problems. J Speech Hear Assoc. 1968;10:17-22.
8 Brentari D. Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.
9 Battison R. Lexical borrowing in American sign language. Washington: Linstok Press; 1978.
10 Liddell SK, Johnson RE. American sign language: the phonological base. Sign Lang Stud. 1989;64(1):195-277.
11 Saldías PA. Análisis descriptivo de la categoría gramatical de aspecto en la lengua de señas chilena [tesis]. Santiago: Universidad de Chile; 2015 [cited 2024 Feb 16]. Available from:
12 Haug T, Mann W. Adapting tests of sign language assessment for other sign languages: a review of linguistic, cultural, and psychometric problems. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007;13(1):138-47.
13 Vargas DZ, Mezzomo CL, Kessler TM. O desenvolvimento da percepção dos contrastes mínimos na língua brasileira de sinais em um grupo de Codas. Rev CEFAC. 2016;18(4):835-42.
14 Vargas DZ, Mezzomo CL, Kessler TM. A elaboração de um instrumento para investigar o domínio da percepção dos contrastes mínimos na língua brasileira de sinais. CoDAS. 2017;29(4):e20160234.
15 Makaroğlu B, Uzun I, Arik E. Evidence for minimal pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Pozn Stud Contemp Linguist. 2014;50(3):207-30.
16 International Test Comission. Guideliness for Translating and Adapting Tests [Internet]. 2nd ed. England: International Test Comission; 2017 [cited 2024 Feb 16]. Available from:
17 Quintela DA, Robterson XA, Ramírez IC. Diccionario bilingüe lengua de señas chilena/español: un desafío lexicográfico. RLA Rev Linguist Teor Apl. 2013;51(2):173-92.
18 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.
19 Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. Boston naming test. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
20 Astepe BS, Köleli I. Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of Australian pelvic floor questionnaire in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;234:71-4.
21 Fonseca MS, Pérez A, Pineda MI, Lemus FJ. Comunicación oral y escrita. London: Pearson Education; 2011.
22 Khouri NDMAA, Silva JC. Revisão narrativa: metodologias de adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos. Rev Eixo. 2019;8(2):220-9.
23 Haug T. Methodological and theoretical issues in the adaptation of sign language tests: an example from the adaptation of a test to German Sign Language. Lang Test. 2012;29(2):181-201.
24 Mann W, Prinz P. An investigation of the need for sign language assessment in deaf education. Am Ann Deaf. 2006;151(3):356-70.
25 Bochner JH, Christie K, Hauser PC, Searls JM. When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American sign language. Lang Learn. 2011;61(4):1302-27.
26 Napoli DJ, Ferrara C. Correlations between handshape and movement in sign languages. Cogn Sci. 2021;45(5):e12944.
Submetido em:
16/02/2024
Aceito em:
26/06/2024
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email