Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

3-1987

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education

Major Professor

Gerald D. Cheek

Committee Members

Roger W. Haskell, Gerald K. LaBorde, Susan M. Benner, Dewey H. Stollar

Abstract

Very little empirical evidence was available on the special competencies needed by deafness rehabilitation specialists, beyond their basic training, to deliver quality services to deaf persons. This study was conducted to: (1) identify the special competencies and their importance to the effective performance of deafness rehabilitation specialists; (2) determine if consensus existed among rehabilitation counselors for deaf clients (RCDs), supervisors of RCDs, and state coordinators for deafness (SCDs) about the perceived importance of the special competencies; and (3) determine when the special competencies should be acquired. The study also sought to determine if the background of the respondents influenced the value they placed on the special competencies.

The special competencies were contained in a researcher-developed instrument, the SCDRI (Special Competencies in Deafness Rehabilitation Inventory). The 82 special competency items were organized into 8 related competencies which represented a set of nationally verified competencies for deafness rehabilitation specialists.

Data were gathered from a randomly selected sample of 217 RCDs, 194 supervisors of RCDs, and 53 SCDs employed in state rehabilitation agencies within the 10 Rehabilitation Service Administration (RSA) regions. The SCDRI was mailed to each respondent who was asked to rate the importance of the special competencies using a 5-point Likert-type scale which ranged from high importance to no importance. The respondents were also asked to indicate when they perceived the special competencies should be acquired, and to rank the importance of the special competencies to the effective performance of deafness rehabilitation specialists. Information about the respondent's education and deafness background was obtained.

The conclusions drawn from the findings of the study were;

1. Evidence is now available to the profession on what special competencies are required of qualified deafness rehabilitation specialists.

2. RCDs should expect conflicting expectations from their supervisors regarding interpersonal relations needed to work with deaf persons, their families, and other professionals.

3. Since supervisors of RCDs acquired most of their knowledge about deafness by on-the-job training, the RCDs should not expect to learn about deafness from their supervisors.

4. The RCDs, SCDs, and supervisors of RCDs are not likely to be prepared in the area of deafness prior to their employment in state rehabilitation agencies. Therefore, the best of state rehabilitation agencies may be forced to hire unqualified workers in this area.

5. RCDs, SCDs, and supervisors of RCDs are likely to prefer pre-service training over in-service training for learning the majority of the special competencies.

6. Competence in the area of Communication Modalities and Systems is likely to be valued highly by professionals in deafness rehabilitation.

7. RCDs who spend more time with deaf persons are more likely to know what special competencies are needed. Also, the level of degree earned by RCDs is likely to affect the value they place on the special competencies.

8. The supervisors of RCDs and SCDs are more affected by when they receive training in deafness than RCDs. They are likely to perceive the special competencies to be less important when they receive in-service training in this area.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS