JournalofofDeaf

Journal Deaf Studies

Studies and
and Deaf Education

The Deaf Acculturation Scale (DAS): Development and

Validation of a 58-Item Measure
Deborah Maxwell-McCaw*,1, Maria Cecilia Zea2
1
Gallaudet University
2
The George Washington University

Received March 23, 2010; revisions received November 23, 2010; accepted November 23, 2010

This study involved the development and validation of the However, not all individuals with a hearing loss nec-
Deaf Acculturation Scale (DAS), a new measure of cultural essarily align themselves within this culture (e.g., such
identity for Deaf and hard-of-hearing (hh) populations. Data
as elderly people who have experienced hearing loss as
for this study were collected online and involved a nation-
wide sample of 3,070 deaf/hh individuals. Results indicated a part of aging or deaf people who were raised using
strong internal reliabilities for all the subscales, and con- spoken language). Yet, all deaf/hh people, even those
struct validity was established by demonstrating that the born into generations-old deaf families, are forced by
DAS could discriminate groups based on parental hearing varying extents to interact with the hearing majority
status, school background, and use of self-labels. Construct
culture around them. This has resulted in a large var-
validity was further demonstrated through factorial analyses,
and findings resulted in a final 58-item measure. Directions iation in the types of acculturative experiences that
for future research are discussed. deaf/hh people have within the United States as well
as around the world and researchers within Deaf cul-
As our society becomes increasingly multicultural,
ture are increasingly interested in ways to formally
many struggle to reconcile the conflicting cultural
assess this.
expectations that they face. Deaf and hard-of-hearing
Acculturation is related to social identity. But
(hh) people are no exception. In fact, many deaf/hh1
these two concepts also differ. Social identity is simply
people experience cultural conflicts that surround
the degree of psychological identification with a partic-
their potential involvement in two distinct cultural
ular cultural group. Acculturation involves a more
groups: hearing culture and Deaf culture. Although
comprehensive picture as it involves a process of psy-
Deaf cultures may have existed as far back as the
chological and behavioral change that occurs as indi-
mid-17th century (Bulwer, 1648), it has only been in
viduals engage in ongoing contact with a new culture.
the last 30 years that scholarly attempts have been
Distinction between these terms is necessary because
made to define the parameters around which Deaf
while cultural behaviors often reflect the degree
culture exists. One direct outcome of this research is
of psychological identification with a culture, such
that many Deaf people have shifted their perceptions
behaviors are not always related to the identity. For
of themselves as persons with a hearing loss or medical
example, members of a particular group may behav-
pathology, to those who belong to a unique cultural
iorally participate in a culture without necessarily psy-
group with its own language, historical traditions, art
chologically identifying with it (e.g., a deaf person who
forms, and values (Bienvenu & Colonomos, 1988;
knows sign language, but prefers to identify with and
Gannon, 1981; Markowitz & Woodward, 1978; Padden
socialize in the hearing community). Others might
& Humphries, 1988; Stokoe, 1965; Woodward, 1982).
identity with a particular culture without maintaining
*Correspondence should be sent to Deborah Maxwell-McCaw, Depart- a high level of cultural practice in that culture (e.g.,
ment of Psychology, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue NE,
Washington, DC 20002 (e-mail: [email protected]).
the Hispanic person who shows great pride in his/her


© The
The Author
Author2011.
2011.Published
PublishedbybyOxford
OxfordUniversity Press.
University AllAll
Press. rights reserved.
rights reserved. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq061
For Permissions, please
please email:
email:[email protected]
[email protected] AdvanceAccess
Advance Accesspublication
publicationon
on January
January 24, 2011
326 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

Hispanic Heritage but is very Americanized in his/her petence. Thus, according to many authors more im-
behavior). Consequently, researchers have explored portant to membership in the Deaf culture than actual
the relationship between the two constructs and their level of hearing loss according is the identification with
interactions (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1994). other Deaf people, competence in ASL as well as
The modern Deaf community in the United States acceptance, compliance, and knowledge of the rules
is becoming increasingly more bicultural than ever of interaction (Bahan, 1994; Padden & Humphries,
before (Padden, 1996). Advances in technology (e.g., 1988; Woodward, 1982). Yet, some degree of hearing
the rise of digital hearing aids/cochlear implants/ loss is often necessary for full acceptance into the cul-
pagers/text messaging) and the passing of the ture. For example, many CODAs, hearing children of
Americans with Disabilities Act has led to the increase Deaf parents, are culturally deaf because they are na-
of public resources and enabled greater integration tive signers but are still never considered full-fledged
with the hearing world. This integration has resulted members of the deaf community because of their hear-
in increasing tensions within the Deaf community re- ing status (Higgins, 1980; Leigh, Marcus, Dobosh, &
garding how boundaries between deaf and hearing Allen, 1998; Padden & Humphries, 1988). Further-
cultures are established and maintained, as well as more, acculturation into Deaf culture is often compli-
how deaf people define themselves in the world cated by the fact that a majority of deaf people do not
(Grosjean, 1992). Therefore, biculturalism in deaf/ become enculturated into Deaf culture through tradi-
hh people is ‘‘conceptualized to include more than tional means of cultural transmission (parent-to-child)
simple competence in two cultures (as in bilingual- because approximately 95% are born into hearing fam-
ism), but also involves the ability to negotiate the ilies (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). Thus, acculturation
tensions between competing and often profoundly into Deaf culture typically happens beginning at school
contradictory beliefs and values between deaf and age or later (if at all), and most often through peers or
hearing cultures’’ (Grosjean, 1992, p. 309). As a result, older generations of deaf people who are not family
for many deaf/hh people, dual involvement within the members. To further explore which factors contribute
two communities can be either beneficial or stressful. to a deaf/hh person’s identity and cultural integration,
In order for researchers to better understand the we believe it is necessary to have a measure that can
potential benefits and/or liabilities of biculturalism reliably assess levels of acculturation and acculturative
within deaf/hh populations, a means to formally patterns within Deaf community.
measure levels of acculturation is imperative. Studies on scales that measure ethnic/racial iden-
What factors ultimately influence whether a deaf/ tities and acculturation tend to fall under two distinct
hh individual will develop a deaf, hearing, marginal- theoretical frameworks. The first involves ethnic/
ized, or bicultural identity? Not all individuals with racial identity which has been studied from stage/
a hearing-loss necessarily align themselves with Deaf status theories (e.g., Cross, 1971; Glickman, 1993;
culture nor are accepted as members; moreover, de- Glickman & Carey, 1993; Helms, 1990, 1996) as well
gree of hearing loss does not appear to be a criterion as from social identity theories (e.g., Phinney, 1992,
for membership in Deaf culture. Ultimate assimilation 2003; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Cavous,
into Deaf culture appears to be a collection of what 1997; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous,
Johnson and Erting (1989) call paternity (involuntary, 1998; Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmer-
biological criteria which in this case is hearing loss or man, 2003; Sellers & Chavous, 2003; Tajfel & Turner,
deaf parentage) and patrimony (voluntary, behavioral, 1986). These studies often address the effects of op-
and attitudinal indicators of membership). Bahan pression and discrimination toward members of non-
(1994) believes that complete membership in Deaf white racial and ethnic groups and were primarily
culture is determined by a combination of Deaf Expe- interested in internal psychological processes. The
rience and Deaf World Knowledge (DWK). His notion second theoretical framework comes under accultura-
of DWK is similar to the patrimony by Johnson tion theories that were developed to assess the expe-
and Erting, with the added construct of cultural com- riences of immigrants entering in contact with a new
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 327

host culture. Early theories and measures were linear and Previous to the Glickman study, the measurement
posited that individuals would acquire dimensions of the of social identity as well as acculturation within the
new culture and abandon their culture of origin (e.g., deaf/hh populations was a relatively recent scholarly
Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Marın, Sabogal, Marın, endeavor. Other attempts to measure social identity in
Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1987; Szapocznik, deaf/hh people focused exclusively on choice of social
Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980; Szapocznik, Scopetta, relationships with hearing and/or deaf peers as
Kurtines, & Aranalde, 1978). More recently, accultura- a means to study identity (Bat-Chava, 1994; Stinson
tion has been characterized as a bilinear and multidi- & Kluwin, 1996; Weinberg & Sterritt, 1986). One
mensional process, in which individuals may acquire particular study supported that for deaf/hh people,
dimensions of the new culture while retaining those of identity was influenced by language choice, specifically
their own culture (e.g., language) or maintaining their spoken English or American Sign Language (ASL)
ethnic identity while acquiring the competence to ne- (Kannapell, 1993).
gotiate the new culture. Today, there are several scales The DIDS (Glickman, 1993; Glickman & Carey,
available that are bilinear and multidimensional which 1993) was conceptually based on Helms’s (1990) Ra-
have been used with Latino/Latina, Puerto-Rican, cial Identity Development Theory and proposed that
Mexican-American, and Chinese-American samples deaf people evolve through four stages of identity de-
(e.g., Cortes, Rogler, & Malgady, 1994; Cuellar, Arnold, velopment, starting with first internalizing negative
& Maldonado, 1995; Felix-Ortiz, Newcomb, & Myers, hearing views toward deaf people by seeing their deaf-
1994; Mendoza, 1989; Stephenson, 2000; Tsai, Ying, & ness as a medically based pathology, to a marginaliza-
Lee, 2000; Zea, Asner-Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003). tion period (confusion about where one belongs), to an
Given that the deaf community is continuing to immersion period (characterized by uncritically
evolve, it is unclear which of the two existing models accepting all things ‘‘Deaf ’’ and denigrating hearing
are most appropriate to capture the evolving identities people/values), and ultimately to an integration (bi-
and acculturative experiences within the deaf/hh pop- cultural) phase. The DIDS, therefore, consists of four
ulation. As a community, deaf/hh people have had to subscales, each of which describes four types of deaf
face many of the same linguistic and cultural pressures cultural identities, including: hearing identity, mar-
that various other minority and immigrating groups ginal identity, deaf identity, and bicultural identity.
have had to face in the United States. For example, Participants are assigned to an identity type according
deaf/hh people have faced relentless oppression of to which subscale they scored highest on.
their natural language (ASL) and discrimination about Glickman’s initial study demonstrated adequate
their ability to function in a hearing world, just as reliability and construct validity, but several subse-
African-Americans have climbed from the oppression quent researchers using the DIDS had difficulty
and discrimination that began with slavery to their obtaining similar reliability coefficients and have ques-
quest for equal rights. Deaf/hh people have also had tioned its construct validity because most, if not all
to struggle to balance their membership within two participants have tended to be classified as bicultural
communities (deaf and hearing) just as immigrating (Fischer & McWhirter, 2001; Leigh et al., 1998; Wald
groups in America do. However, only one of these & Knutsen, 2000) It is unclear if this is due to partic-
models has been empirically validated on deaf popu- ipant tendency to respond in a socially desirable man-
lations through a study that involved the development ner (as Leigh et al., 1998 propose), or if the DIDS
of a scale known as the Deaf Identity Development Scale is so sensitive to the existence of any levels of bicul-
(DIDS) (Glickman, 1993; Glickman & Carey, 1993) turalism that it cannot differentiate the degree of
which examines the psychological process by which biculturalism within this population (e.g., discriminate
audiologically deaf people acquire culturally deaf iden- between those who have some bicultural contact
tities, particularly in a environment that been tradi- versus those who are truly bicultural).
tionally oppressive of deaf cultures and signed As an overall scale, the DIDS was found to be
languages. a valid means to measure variations in identity patterns
328 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

within the Deaf community and that it tends to that might contribute to identity are separated by sub-
perform similarly to other racial and minority identity scales, allowing researchers to see how each dimension
scales. However, like these scales, it shares one poten- might individually contribute to overall acculturation.
tial theoretical weakness. In this case, affiliation by It also assesses two cultures independently of the other,
deaf/hh people with the hearing world is implied by so that each has its own continuum from low to high.
the DIDS model to be pathological (these members These authors felt that the ability to evaluate the range
would in essence be self hating) and strong Deaf ac- of association with deaf and hearing cultures separately
culturation would involve a tendency to remain sepa- would be beneficial to future researchers—because it
ratist in one’s orientation to the Deaf community was strongly felt that association with each of these two
while being fixated on anger toward hearing people. culture is not necessarily exclusive of the other (e.g.,
However, these authors propose that it is possible for being strongly affiliated with the Deaf community does
some deaf/hh people to remain primarily acculturated not necessarily mean that one is unattached to the
to the hearing world without necessarily experiencing hearing world or vice versa).
damage to their self-worth; deafness is simply not Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop
related to their self-esteem. It is also possible for a new measure, The Deaf Acculturation Scale (DAS),
deaf/hh people to uphold a strong affiliation to their using the second theoretical model (the acculturation
Deaf identity and prefer to socialize and work primar- model) for assessing deaf/hh identities. As part of the
ily in a Deaf environment without necessarily hating/ development of this new measure, several goals were
alienating hearing people or hearing culture. In other addressed: first, to develop an acculturation measure
words, they could be truly ‘‘D’’eaf rather than bicul- specifically for deaf/hh people that is both multidimen-
tural. Unfortunately, the DIDS would not permit sional and bilinear; second, to examine the factor struc-
researchers to examine these subtle variations in atti- ture of the DAS to ensure that each of the subscales is
tudes within deaf/hh populations. unidimensional (measure a single construct); third, to
Another limitation that presented in the design determine if the newly developed scale has adequate
of the DIDS is that individual subscales tended to internal consistency; and fourth, to establish construct
blend several dimensions of identity (i.e., attitudes, validity vis-à-vis parental hearing status, school back-
behaviors, psychological identification) within each ground, and the individual’s use of self-labels.
subscale and this makes it difficult for researchers to
examine the relationship that these various dimensions Methods
have with each other.
Procedures
These limitations were taken into account as the
authors of the current study looked for alternative A wide range of deaf/hh individuals were recruited
models for assessing deaf identities and the process of for participation in this study, including those from
acculturation within the Deaf community. Therefore, various ethnic backgrounds, educational histories,
although the DIDS has been a significant breakthrough communication preferences, levels of hearing loss,
in the field, additional measures could further contrib- class, and race. Data for this study were compiled
ute to our understanding of identity formation within during the first author’s dissertation study and were
this population. In particular, how deaf/hh people ne- collected over the Internet, but only the data related
gotiate their acculturative experiences with both Deaf to the DAS and demographics were used for this
and hearing worlds, as well as how the various dimen- study. A separate e-mail was sent to professionals
sions connected with identity and acculturation interact who work in the field of deaf education and/or men-
with one another in deaf/hh people are questions that tal health requesting that they forward it to their
remain to be answered. The Multidimensional Accul- students, clients, and professional colleagues. Organ-
turation Scale (Birman & Zea, 1996) seemed like an izations serving deaf/hh populations were also con-
ideal measure for adaption for use with the deaf/hh tacted and asked to post the link to the survey
community because individual factors (dimensions) Website on their own web page.
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 329

Participants Scale Construction

A total of 3,070 deaf/hh people participated in this The overall design of the DAS was obtained by adapt-
study. Thirty-three percent were male, and 67% were ing the Birman and Zea Acculturation Scale (Birman
female. The youngest participant in the study was age & Zea, 1996) to apply to deaf/hh individuals. This
12 and the oldest was age 75, with a mean age of 35.7 scale was selected for modification to the deaf/hh
(SD 5 11.55) for the overall sample. See Table 1 community because the structure enables two cultures
for general demographics. In terms of ethnic back- to be looked at separately from the other and the sub-
grounds, 90.6% of the participants were Caucasian, scales measure separate and distinct dimensions of
3.9% were Latino, 2.7% were Black or African- acculturation. The Birman and Zea Acculturation
American, 2.7% were Asian, 1.2% were Native Scale has since been shortened and published as the
American and 2.8% were from other ethnic back- Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale
grounds. In terms of educational achievement, 1.6% (AMAS-ZABB; Zea et al., 2003). Because of unique
reported they had completed elementary school, 26% features that Deaf/hh individuals do not share with
completed high school, 7% completed some sort of Latinos, the DAS evolved differently in terms of
vocational training, 40.6% were college educated,
and 26.3% had attended graduate school. At the time Table 2 Demographics on the nature of hearing loss,
parental hearing status, and educational background
of the survey, 19% of the sample were high school or
college students, and the remaining were adults living Demographics n %
in the community. Age of Deafness
Born deaf 1937 62.0
For a detailed view of the demographics related to
Age 0–3 687 22.0
deafness, please see Table 2. In summary, the majority Age 4–10 142 4.5
of the sample became deaf during childhood (before Age 11–21 28 .9
the age of 10) and had at least a severe/profound level After 21 14 .4
of hearing loss. There was a proportionally higher Progressive hearing loss 127 4.1
Do not know 144 6.1
number of deaf participants who had at least one deaf
Degree of hearing loss
parent (19%), compared to the typical average of 5%, 10–30 db (mild) 53 1.7
but the types of schools attended were fairly evenly 40–60 db (moderate) 151 4.8
split between mainstream and residential schooling. 70–80 db (severe) 516 16.5
Overall, this sample was a predominately signing 90–120 db (profound) 1,674 53.6
Do not know 676 21.6
one, even though many initially grew up orally. Parental hearing status
Table 1 General demographics of the sample Deaf parents (at least one) 594 19.3
Hearing parents 2,476 80.7
Demographics N % Language used in the home:
Sex (Note. some checked more than one)
Male 1,004 32.7 Spoken English 2,190 71.3
Female 2,066 67.3 Spoken Spanish 59 1.9
Ethnic background Other spoken language 202 6.6
Caucasian 2,832 88.4 American Sign 1,263 41.1
Latino 121 3.9 Language
Black (African-American) 84 2.7 Other signed language 901 29.3
Asian 83 2.7 Type of high school attended:
Native American 37 1.2 (Note. some checked more than one)
Other 87 2.8 Hearing school without support 744 24
Level of education Self-contained classroom 115 4
Completed high school 809 26.0 Mainstreamed with support 988 32.2
Vocational training 221 7.0 Oral Deaf school 110 4
College degree 1,266 41.0 Day school for the Deaf 212 7
Graduate degree 830 27.0 Residential school 1,355 43
330 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

scoring and structure (there are more subscales than in Pilot Study
the AMAS-ZABB). The DAS consists of two overall
A preliminary version with 70 items rated on a Likert-
acculturation scales: Acculturation to Deaf Culture
type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
(DASd) and Acculturation to Hearing Culture
was piloted on a sample of 102 deaf/hh individuals
(DASh), each composed of five parallel subscales that
recruited from a local university and at Deaf social
measure acculturation across five domains: cultural
events. Only a limited number of oral (or hearing accul-
identification, cultural involvement, cultural preferen-
turated) participants participated in this pilot study. Par-
ces, cultural knowledge, and language competence.
ticipants were asked to complete the DAS, along with
Individual items were developed to match con-
a measure of Collective Self-Esteem (adapted from
structs identified by researchers of Deaf culture as
Luhthanen & Crocker, 1992), a Self-Esteem Scale
salient in Deaf identity, as well as those salient in
(Rosenberg, 1979), and a form requesting demographic
acculturation to the hearing world identified by
information. Results indicated that as an overall scale, the
deaf/hh people. Therefore, items that would measure
DAS had acceptable internal consistency across the sub-
patrimony (defined as behavioral and attitudinal indi-
scales (with the exception of one subscale in the DASh
cators of membership in the deaf community [Johnson
that has since been corrected), as well as concurrent
& Erting, 1989]), as well as Deaf Experience and Deaf
validity (Maxwell & Zea, 1998). According to DeVellis
World Knowledge (Bahan, 1994) were developed and
(2003), alphas above .65 are generally deemed acceptable.
measured in the first three subscales: cultural identi-
Cronbach’s alphas of the DAS ranged from .32 to .94 on
fication, cultural involvement, and cultural preferen-
all the individual subscales (note: two subscales showed
ces. More specifically, the cultural identification
alphas at .32 and .57, all others were above .77), with .95
subscales measure internalization and incorporation
for the DASd and .86 on the DASh. Several revisions of
of the cultural values associated with both Deaf and
the DAS were made for the first author’s dissertation
hearing worlds, as well as feelings of belonging to each
study (Maxwell-McCaw, 2001). To improve the internal
culture (e.g., ‘‘my participation in the Deaf world is an
consistency, items were removed or added to the cultural
important part of my life,’’ and ‘‘being involved in the
identification subscales. Two parallel items from the cul-
hearing world is an important part of my life’’). The
tural knowledge subscales were reassigned to the lan-
cultural involvement subscales were designed to mea-
guage competence subscales. Finally, items were
sure cultural behaviors and the degree of participation
clarified and/or reworded throughout the subscales to
in various cultural activities (e.g., ‘‘How much do you
improve clarity and readability. All items were then sub-
enjoy attending deaf/hearing parties/gatherings/
mitted to the WordPerfect Grammatik Check in order to
events’’), whereas the cultural preferences subscales
assess the level of reading difficulty. Results indicated
were designed to measure cultural preferences (deaf
that the scale was rated at the 6.77 grade level for read-
vs. hearing) related to choices for friends, partners,
ing. Although general findings indicate that many cultur-
spouses, as well as educational and work settings.
ally Deaf people read on an average of a fourth-grade
The remaining two subscales were designed to mea-
level (Traxler, 2000), results from an item-analysis con-
sure cultural competence, including both language
ducted later in the study showed that DAS subscales had
competence and overall knowledge of each culture
strong reliability (high Cronbach Alpha’s; discussed be-
(e.g., knowledge of the collective history of each
low) and the authors believe this is a good indicator that
culture). Therefore, items in the language competence
the sample was able to comprehend the items in the
subscales measure expressive and receptive compe-
measure.
tence in ASL, as well as competence in spoken and
written English, whereas the cultural knowledge
DAS Administered in This Study
subscales measure DWK and hearing world knowl-
edge (e.g., ‘‘how well do you know the traditions and The resulting version of the DAS used for this study is
customs from Deaf schools or ‘‘how well do you know a 78-item scale to be rated on a Likert-type scale that
important events in American/world history’’). ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 331

Two separate scoring methods were validated in this Results indicated that the 5 factors accounted for
study, and either can be used, depending on 60.4% of the variance on the DASd and 51.2% of
the needs of the researcher. The first method gives the variance on DASh. All items in the DASd loaded
participants a separate acculturation score (scored as unambiguously with the appropriate subscale. Most
a continuous variable) for each culture (i.e., a DASd items on the DASh also loaded with the appropriate
score and a DASh score). This is obtained by totaling subscale. However, the cultural identity subscale did
averaged scores from each of the individual subscales not emerge as a separate factor on the DASh. Instead,
within the DASd and DASh and dividing by the num- half of the items loaded on the cultural preferences
ber of subscales (5). The second scoring method subscale and the other half on the cultural involve-
enables researchers to obtain an overall acculturation ment subscale. In addition, the hearing language com-
style by sorting each participant to one of four accul- petence subscale loaded as two separate factors rather
turation categories. This can be obtained by first assign- than one, indicating that for this sample of deaf/hh
ing participants into a high score (if they score above people, spoken and written literacy are distinct skills
a 3) or low (if they score below a 2.9) score on each of that are not always directly related to the other.
the acculturation scales (the DASd and DASh). Partic- To shorten the cumbersome total scale, items that
ipants are then assigned to one of four types of accul- loaded below .50 or ambiguously on more than one
turation by combining the two scores, such that: (a) subscale were removed. Some theoretical consider-
hearing acculturated equals a high DASh and low ation was also used in selecting which items to keep
DASd score, (b) marginal (low DASh and low DASd), or remove (e.g., one item ‘‘I would prefer my educa-
(c) Deaf acculturated (low DASh and high DASd), or tion to be at a hearing school or a mainstream setting’’
(d) bicultural (high DASh and high DASd). was retained because it was theoretically significant
and close enough because it had a loading of .49). In
total, 20 items were removed at this stage. The sub-
Results
scale structure of the DASh maintained its original
Factor Analyses form, in spite of the fact that some items within the
hearing cultural identity subscale loaded ambiguously
Factor analyses were conducted in this study with two
with other subscales and the language competence
purposes in mind. The primary reason was to examine
subscale was split between 2 factors, in order to keep
if each of the subscales proposed in the DAS do, in fact,
the overall measure consistent between the two accul-
measure a single theoretical construct. The second pur-
turation scales. Therefore, the DAS now consists of 58
pose was to use information gleaned from these analyses
items, two acculturation scales (DASd/DASh), each
to shorten the length of the scale as many researchers
with five parallel subscales.
have contacted the authors requesting a shorter version
of the DAS. Thus, both exploratory and confirmatory Principal Components Analysis 2 (using one third of
factor analyses were conducted. The sample was split the sample; N 5 1,041)
into two groups and one third of the sample was used
A second and final principal component analysis (PCA)
for exploratory factor analyses and 2/3 of the sample
was conducted to examine the factor structure of the
was used for the confirmatory factor analysis.
remaining 58 items. Results indicated that for the
DASd, the 5 factors accounted for 64.99% of the var-
Principal Components Analysis 1 (using one third of
iance, and on the DASh, the 5 factors accounted for
the sample; N 5 1,041)
59.1% of the variance. All items within the DASd
In order to examine whether the DAS subscales mea- loaded appropriately with their respective subscales,
sured distinct and separate factors, each overall accul- though items within the subscales of the DASh contin-
turation scale (DASd/DASh) was subjected to ued to load as described in PCA 1. The content of the
a principal components analysis using a varimax rota- items from this analysis is shown in Tables 3a and 3b,
tion specifying 5 factors (one for each subscale). along with each item’s factor loading. The original item
332 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

Table 3a Results of principal components analysis 2 (PCA 2): Deaf acculturation (DASd) (N 5 1,041)
Deaf Deaf Deaf
Deaf cultural cultural cultural ASL
Item identity involvement preferences competence competence
Deaf Acculturation Scale (DASd)
1 (1). I call myself deaf. .53
4 (2). I feel that I am part of the deaf community. .64
9 (3). I am comfortable with deaf people. .76
10 (4). Being involved in the deaf world (and with deaf people) .71
is an important part of my life.
14 (5). My deaf identity is an important part of who I am. .66
How much do you enjoy
18 (11). Reading magazines/books written by deaf authors. .68
21 (12). Going to deaf events/parties/gatherings .54 .45
26 (13). Going to theater events with deaf actresses/actors .73
28 (14). Watching ASL videotapes by deaf story-tellers or deaf .70
poets.
31 (15). Participating in political activities that promote .65
the rights of deaf people.
34 (16). Attending Deaf-related workshops (e.g., workshops on .73
Deaf culture or linguistics in ASL)
If you could have your way, how would you prefer
the following situations in your life to be like?
35 (23). I would prefer my education to be .66
at a deaf school.
36 (24). I would prefer if my roommate .71
was deaf.
39 (25). I would prefer that my church/ .67
temple is mostly deaf.
40 (26). I would prefer my date/partner/ .70
spouse to be deaf.
45 (27). I would prefer my closest friends .65
to be deaf.
47 (28). I would prefer my children to .58
be deaf.
48 (29). I would prefer my work environment .61
to be deaf.
How well do you know
59 (37). Traditions and customs from Deaf schools. .62
60 (38). Names of deaf heroes or well-known deaf people. .80
64 (39). Important events in Deaf history. .81
65 (40). Well-known political leaders in the Deaf community. .84
66 (41). Organizations run by and for Deaf people. .81

67 (47). How well do you sign using ASL? .77

68 (48). How well do you understand other people using ASL? .79
69 (49). When you sign using ASL, how well do other deaf .79
people understand you?
70 (50). How well do you fingerspell? .76
71 (51). How well can you read other people’s finger spelling? .80
72 (52). How well do you know current ASL slang or popular .75
expressions in ASL?
Note. Item numbers for the 58-item version of the DAS is in parenthesis. Numbers on left represent original item numbers in the Maxwell-McCaw
(2001) dissertation.
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 333 Scale 333
The Deaf Acculturation

Table 3b Principal
Table 3bcomponents
Principal analysis
components
2, continued:
analysis 2,Hearing
continued:
acculturation
Hearing acculturation
(DASh) (DASh)
English English
Hearing Hearing Hearing language
Hearing language
Hearing cultural
Hearing cultural
Hearing cultural
Hearing Competence Competence
cultural
Item Item identity involvement preferences competence
identity involvement a b
preferences competence a b
Hearing Acculturation
Hearing Acculturation
Scale (DASh) Scale (DASh)
2 (6). I am 2comfortable
(6). I am withcomfortable
hearing with
people.
hearing people. .61 .61
5 (7). I call5myself
(7). Ihearing-impaired
call myself hearing-impaired
or hard of hearing.
or hard of hearing. .52 .52
6 (8). Being6 involved
(8). Beingin theinvolved
hearinginworld
the hearing
(and with
world (and .60
with .60
hearing people)
hearing
is an people)
importantis anpart
important
of my life.
part of my life.
8 (9). I often
8 (9).
wish Ithat
often
I could
wish hear
that Ibetter
couldorhear better or .60 .60
become hearing.
become hearing.
13 (10). I feel
13that
(10).I am
I feel
partthat
of Ithe
amhearing
part ofworld.
the hearing world..62 .62
How much doHowyou enjoy
much do you enjoy
19 (17). Going
19 (17).
to theater
Going events
to theater
with hearing
events with hearing .51 .51
actresses/actors
actresses/actors
23 (18). Attending
23 (18).professional
Attending workshops
professionalinworkshops
the in the .72 .72
hearing world.hearing world.
24 (19). Participating
24 (19). Participating
in hearing political
in hearing
activities.
political activities..65 .65
25 (20). Socializing
25 (20). with
Socializing
hearing with
people.
hearing people. .74 .74
30 (21). Attending
30 (21).hearing
Attending
gatherings/events/parties.
hearing gatherings/events/parties. .73 .73
33 (22). Participating
33 (22). Participating
in or attending
in or
hearing
attending hearing .59 .59
athletic competitions.
athletic competitions.
If you could have
If youyour
could
way,
have
howyour
would
way,youhow
prefer
wouldtheyou
following
prefer the
situations
following
in your
situations
life toinbeyour
like?life to be like?
37 (30). I would
37 (30).
prefer
I would
my children
prefer to
mybechildren
hearing.to be hearing. .72 .72
38 (31). I would
38 (31).
prefer
I would
if my work
preferenvironment
if my work environment
to to .69 .69
be hearing. be hearing.
41 (32). I would
41 (32).
prefer
I would
that myprefer
education
that my
to education
be in to be in .42 .42
a hearing school
a hearing
or a mainstream
school or a environment.
mainstream environment.
42 (33). I would
42 (33).
prefer
I would
my roommate
prefer my were
roommate
hearing.were hearing. .69 .69
43 (34). I would
43 (34).
prefer
I would
my closest
preferfriends
my closest
to be friends
hearing.to be hearing. .70 .70
44 (35). I would
44 (35).
prefer
I would
my date/partner/spouse
prefer my date/partner/spouse .64 .64
to be hearing.to be hearing.
46 (36). I would
46 (36).
prefer
I would
that myprefer
church/temple
that my church/temple
is is .63 .63
mostly hearing.mostly hearing.
How well do you
Howknow
well do you know
51 (42). Names
51 (42).
of national
Namesheroes.
of national heroes. .74 .74
53 (43). Names
53 (43).
of popular
Nameshearing
of popular
newspapers
hearing and
newspapers and .76 .76
magazines. magazines.
54 (44). Names of famous
54 (44). Names hearing actorshearing
of famous and actresses.
actors and actresses. .67 .67
55 (45). Important
55 (45).events in American/world
Important history.
events in American/world history. .82 .82
56 (46). Names of famous
56 (46). Names hearing political
of famous leaders.
hearing political leaders. .82 .82

73 (53). How73well
(53).do How
you speak
well doEnglish, using
you speak your voice?
English, using your voice? .86 .86
74 (54). In general,
74 (54). how well do how
In general, hearing
wellpeople
do hearing people .86 .86
understand your speech?your speech?
understand
75 (55). How75well
(55).do How
you lip-read?
well do you lip-read? .74 .74
76 (56). How76well
(56).do How
you read
well English?
do you read English? .74 .74
77 (57). How77well
(57).do How
you write in you
well do English?
write in English? .80 .80
78 (58). How78well
(58).do How
you know English
well do idioms
you know or idioms or
English .84 .84
English expressions?
English expressions?
Note. Item numbers
Note.for
Item
thenumbers
58-item for
version
the 58-item
of the Deaf
version
Acculturation
of the DeafScale
Acculturation
is in parenthesis.
Scale is Numbers
in parenthesis.
on leftNumbers
representonoriginal
left represent
item numbers
originalinitem
the numbers in the
Maxwell-McCaw Maxwell-McCaw
(2001) dissertation.
(2001) dissertation.
334 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

number (for the version used in the first author’s dis- DASh, (NFI 5 .52, .65, .80, respectively, and CFI 5
sertation) is shown on the left, and the new item num- .81, .53, .65). All remaining analyses were conducted
ber (for the DAS) is shown in parenthesis on the right. using the two-thirds of the sample used for this test.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (using the remaining Reliability

two thirds of the sample (N 5 2,029)
Descriptive statistics for the subscales from the cur-
Because exploratory factor analyses do not test the ad- rent study are included in Table 5 (results from the
equacy of fit of the different factor models proposed, piloted scale are available upon request). For the cur-
a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test rent study, scores on both scales ranged from 1
three models that made theoretical sense for the DAS (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a mean
(i.e., a one-factor model, a five-factor uncorrelated score of 4.04 (SD 5 .70) on DASd and 3.02 (SD 5
model, and a five-factor correlated model) and results .64) on DASh. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the
are reported in Table 4. Because the DAS was designed DASd subscales ranged from .84 to .92 with an alpha
to measure five separate dimensions within two types of of .95 for the overall scale. Alphas for the DASh also
acculturation, it was predicted that the five-factor cor- show acceptable reliabilities ranging from .71 to .85
related model should have the best fit, that is, results with an alpha of .91 for the overall scale. According
should show that each subscale measures a single di- to DeVellis (2003), alphas above .65 are generally
mension of acculturation, but that the five dimensions deemed acceptable. Using the second scoring method,
are related (correlated) to each other and not entirely results indicated for the overall sample, 164 (8.1%)
separate from each other. The fit of the three models scored as hearing acculturated, 21 (1%) scored as mar-
was evaluated using two criteria: the Bentler and Bonett ginal, 942 (46.4%) were Deaf acculturated, and 902
(1980) normed fit index and the Bentler (1990) com- (44.5%) were bicultural (N 5 2,029).
parative fit index (values above .90 on these two indexes
are generally viewed as indicating a good fit). Using Subscale to Overall Scale Correlations
these two indexes, the five-factor correlated model
yielded the best fit for both acculturation scales. The As indicated in Table 6, the correlations between the
five-factor correlated model (NFI 5 .91, CFI 5 .92) subscales and the overall Deaf Acculturation Scale
was found to be a good fit for the DASd. Although the (DASd) are fairly high and range from (r 5 .75,
five-factor correlated model was found to be superior p , .01, ASL language competence) to (r 5 .82,
over the one-factor and five-factor uncorrelated models, p , .01, deaf cultural knowledge). The correlations
none of the models was found to be a good fit for between hearing subscales with the overall Hearing
Acculturation Scale (DASh) correlations range from
the moderate range (r 5 .57, p , .01, hearing cultural
Table 4 Goodness of fit indexes of three models of the knowledge) to high for hearing cultural identity and
Deaf Acculturation Scale factor structure
hearing cultural preferences (r 5 .82, p , .01). As
Model v2 Df v2/df NFI CFI expected, all DASd subscales were negatively corre-
DASd lated with DASh subscales and vice versa.
One-factor 13832.56 377 36.69 .63 .64
Five-factor uncorrelated 7674.66 377 20.36 .79 .80
Five-factor correlated 3234.60 367 8.81 .91 .92 Concurrent Validity
DASh
One factor 13811.13 377 36.63 .52 .53 Concurrent validity for the DAS using the first scor-
Five-factor uncorrelated 10288.25 377 27.29 .65 .65 ing method (acculturation total scores) was demon-
Five-factor correlated 5690.16 367 15.51 .80 .81 strated by examining scores in relation to two
Note. NFI, normed fit index (Bentler and Bonett 1980); CFI, demographic variables (e.g., parental hearing status
comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990); DASd, Acculturation to Deaf
Culture; DASh, Acculturation to Hearing Culture. All chi-square
and the type of high schools attended) which have
statistics are significant at p , .001. N 5 2,029. been identified by experts of Deaf culture (Bahan,
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 335

Table 5 Means, SDs, and Cronbach’s alpha’s of the Deaf Acculturation Scale (N 5 2,029)
Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural Language Total (overall)
Scale identity involvement preferences knowledge competence acculturation
Scale M
DASd 22.12 24.26 27.13 17.96 25.56 117.02
DASh 14.78 15.94 17.99 17.05 21.72 87.49
Scale SD
DASd 3.64 5.26 6.20 5.40 4.81 20.24
DASh 4.29 5.38 6.11 4.54 5.04 18.89
Item M
DASd 4.42 4.04 3.88 3.59 4.26 4.04
DASh 2.96 2.66 2.57 3.41 3.62 3.02
Alpha
DASd .84 .85 .85 .92 .92 .95
DASh .71 .81 .85 .85 .83 .91
Standardized item alpha
DASd .85 .85 .86 .93 .92 .95
DASh .74 .81 .85 .85 .83 .91
Note. DASd, Acculturation to Deaf Culture; DASh, Acculturation to Hearing Culture.

1994) as highly influencing the acculturative experien- hearing culture (Ms 5 3.42 and 3.41, respectively),
ces of deaf/hh people (see ). First, we compared the t 5 2.163 (2,027), ns. Both groups scored in the mod-
scores of participants with deaf parents with those who erate range on this dimension.
have hearing parents on each of the acculturation Next, using an analysis of variance, we examined
scales. As expected, T scores from an independent- the relationship between the types of high schools that
samples t test indicated that deaf individuals with deaf the participants attended on the two overall accultura-
parents showed higher levels of deaf acculturation on tive scales. As expected, results indicated that scores on
the DASd (M 5 4.35) than deaf individuals with hear- the DAS differed depending on the type of school that
ing parents (M 5 3.96), t 5 211.33 (2,027), p , .01, was attended on both the DASd, F(5, 2,017) 5 69.24,
d 5 2.43, and deaf individuals with hearing parents p , .0001, and the DASh, F(5, 2,017) 5 68.54, p ,
(M 5 3.15) showed higher levels of hearing accultur- .0001. Post hoc analyses of the differences using the
ation on the DASh than deaf individuals with deaf Student-Newman-Keuls, showed that the more ‘‘Deaf ’’
parents (M 5 2.83), t 5 9.13 (2,027), p , .01, d 5 the school environment is, the higher the scores on deaf
1.12. More specific information on how the two acculturation (see Table 8). Those who attended deaf
groups responded across the subscales can be found schools (residential or day programs) scored higher on
in Table 7. Overall, for this sample, deaf individuals the DASd than those who attended mainstreamed pro-
with deaf parents tended to show greater deaf cultural grams or hearing schools. However, differences between
identification, deaf cultural involvement, deaf cultural the more integrated classrooms (oral schools for the
knowledge, language competence in ASL, and deaf deaf, self-contained classrooms in hearing schools, and
preferences than those who grew up in hearing homes. mainstreaming programs that provide support) were
Similarly, those who grew up in hearing homes showed not significant (therefore, they appear as a cluster with
stronger identification with and preferences for hear- similar subscripts). A similar but opposite pattern was
ing culture, as well as better language competence in seen for hearing acculturation depending on the type of
English than those who grew up in deaf homes. It high school that was attended. Those who attended
should be noted that both groups scored higher on hearing schools (both with and without support) scored
DASd than the DASh. However, one interesting find- higher on the DASh than those who attended deaf
ing was that there were no significant differences in schools (both day programs and residential programs).
the two groups with regard to their knowledge of It is noteworthy that scores on the hearing acculturation
336 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

Table 6 Deaf Acculturation Scale: Subscale to overall scale correlations

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Deaf cultural identity 1.00
2 Deaf cultural involvement .61 1.00
3 Deaf cultural preferences .67 .59 1.00
4 Deaf cultural knowledge .50 .56 .52 1.00
5 ASL competence .55 .44 .49 .58 1.00
6 Total Deaf acculturation (DASd) .81 .80 .81 .82 .75 1.00
7 Hearing cultural ID 2.47 2.38 2.57 2.40 2.37 2.54 1.00
8 Hearing cultural involvement 2.34 2.19 2.52 2.21 2.23 2.37 .62 1.00
9 Hearing cultural preferences 2.50 2.43 2.65 2.41 2.39 2.59 .76 .65 1.00
10 Hearing cultural knowledge 2.09 2.05 2.14 .21 .01 ns 2.01 ns .20 .34 .23 1.00
11 English language competence 2.29 2.20 241 2.22 2.23 2.33 .45 .35 .39 .30 1.00
12 Total hearing acculturation (DASh) 2.46 2.33 2.62 2.27 2.33 2.50 .82 .81 .82 .57 .67 1.00
Note. DASd, Acculturation to Deaf Culture; DASh, Acculturation to Hearing Culture. Significance levels: all values are significant at p , .01, except
where indicated; N 5 2,029.

were in the predicted direction. Although all differen- they use most often to identify/describe themselves,
ces were not necessarily significant (as indicated by including: deaf, Deaf, hearing-impaired, hh, or bi-
groups organized using superscripts), it can be said cultural. Results (see Table 9) using a Chi-square
that, in general, the more ‘‘hearing’’ the educational analysis showed that there was a significant associa-
environment, the higher the scores on hearing accul- tion between DAS categories and informal self-labels
turation. v2 (18, N 5 2,029) 5 515.52, p , .0001. The
Concurrent validity for use of the second scoring Cramer’s V effect size for this association is some-
method on the DAS, which assigns participants to what small at .291. These associations will be de-
one of four types of acculturation styles, was exam- scribed below. Odds ratios were calculated for the
ined by comparing the DAS category obtained with single self-label that was theoretically most predicted
the participant use of self-labels (the informal labels to map on each DAS acculturation category.
they give themselves). Self-labels were measured in Individuals who scored as Deaf acculturated on
the demographic section through the use of a single the DAS overwhelmingly identified themselves as up-
question asking participants to select the label that percase ‘‘D’’eaf (74.2%), which reflects a strong and

Table 7 Deaf Acculturation Scale means by parental hearing status

Deaf parents (N 5 404) Hearing parents (N 5 1,625)
Scores M SD M SD t (2,027)
Scales
Deaf Acculturation (DASd)
Cultural identity 4.66 .61 4.37 .74 28.17***
Cultural involvement 4.22 .80 3.99 .89 24.99***
Cultural preferences 4.18 .83 3.80 .88 28.07***
Cultural knowledge 4.03 .99 3.48 1.07 29.90***
Language competence (ASL) 4.67 .61 4.16 .81 214.28***
Total (DASd) 4.35 .61 3.96 .70 211.33***
Hearing Acculturation (DASh)
Cultural identity 2.60 .86 3.04 .84 9.48***
Cultural involvement 2.40 .86 2.72 .89 6.62***
Cultural preferences 2.34 .84 2.88 .84 11.60***
Cultural knowledge 3.42 .98 3.41 .89 2.163 ns
Language competence (English) 3.38 .82 3.68 .83 6.44***
Total (DASh) 2.83 .64 3.15 .63 9.13***
Note. DASd, Acculturation to Deaf Culture; DASh, Acculturation to Hearing Culture. ***p , .0001.
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 337

Table 8 Deaf Acculturation Scale means by schools attended

Total (DASd) Total (DASh)
Scores n M SD M SD
Schools attended
Residential school for the Deaf 781 4.34e .53 2.80a .55
Day school for the Deaf 124 4.18d,e .59 2.88a,b .56
Oral school for the Deaf 50 4.08c,d .74 3.03b .68
Hearing school (self-contained class) 45 3.96b,c .61 3.26c .54
Mainstream program (with support) 643 3.85a,b .67 3.27c .63
Hearing school (no support) 380 3.68a .81 3.38c .63
Note. DASd, Acculturation to Deaf Culture; DASh, Acculturation to Hearing Culture. Superscript letters indicate subsets of means that significantly
differ from one another at p , .05.

dominant affiliation with the Deaf community. The the profoundly deaf level. A small minority of this
odds ratio indicated that the odds of participants using group called themselves Deaf or bicultural (5.5%
a ‘‘D’’eaf self-label were 4.38 times higher in they and 4.3%, respectively).
scored as deaf acculturated on the DAS than if they The majority (57.1%) of the participants who
showed another type of acculturation on the DAS. Of scored as marginal on the DAS labeled themselves as
the remaining participants in the Deaf acculturated lowercase deaf. The odds of a participant self-labeling
group, 18.6% labeled themselves as lowercase deaf as lowercase deaf were 5.55 times higher if they scored
and a small minority labeled themselves as hearing as marginal on the DAS than if they scored as another
impaired, hh, or bicultural (3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.6%, DAS category. A smaller number (19.0%) labeled
respectively). themselves with the uppercase Deaf, indicating strong
Those who scored as hearing acculturated on the feelings of affiliation with Deaf culture. Others labeled
DAS used self-labels that were culturally consistent themselves with hearing cultural norms, such as hear-
with labels that reflect affiliation with the hearing ing impaired (19.0%) or hh (4.9%).
world, such as hearing impaired (35.4%) or hh Only 7.3% of participants who scored as bicultural
(26.8.1%). In fact, the odds ratio shows that the odds on the DAS also self-labeled as bicultural. This low
of participants self-labeling as hearing impaired or hh number is not surprising because ‘‘bicultural’’ is not a
were 11.73 times higher if they scored as hearing ac- term that has circulated much in the deaf community.
culturated on the DAS than if they scored in another Yet the DAS managed to clearly identify this sub-
DAS acculturation category. Of the remaining partic- group. The odds of a participant self-labeling as
ipants in the hearing acculturated category, twenty-six bicultural was 3.9 higher if they fell into the DAS
percent (26.2%) used the lowercase deaf label, which bicultural category than if they fell into another
is not surprising given that at least half of these indi- DAS category. Nearly half (46.2%) of the participants
viduals (47%) reported that their hearing loss was at who scored as bicultural on the DAS labeled

Table 9 Deaf Acculturation Scale: Overall Acculturation Category versus use of self-labels (N 5 2,029)
Acculturation category
Self-label Hearing acculturated (%) Marginal (%) Deaf acculturated (%) Bicultural (%)
Hearing impaired 35.4 19.0 3.0 9.6
Hard of Hearing 26.8 4.9 2.3 10.3
deaf 26.2 57.1 18.6 25.8
Deaf 5.5 19.0 74.2 46.2
Bicultural 4.3 0 1.6 7.3
‘‘Other’’ 1.8 0 .3 .8
Total (within acculturation) 100 100 100 100
338 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

themselves as uppercase Deaf. Yet the odds of a par- are properly aligned with its respective subscale and to
ticipant self-labeling as ‘‘D’’eaf was only half (0.51) if see if the subscales do in fact measure a single con-
they were in the bicultural category than if they were struct. Results from the exploratory factor analyses
in another DAS category. Of the remaining partici- (PCA) supported the theory that the acculturation
pants who scored as bicultural on the DAS, a substan- subscales measure distinct but related dimensions of
tial number (25.8%) labeled themselves as lowercase acculturation, with the exception of the hearing cul-
deaf. A small minority labeled themselves with hearing tural identity subscale (which loaded on several fac-
cultural labels such as hearing impaired (9.6%) or hh tors). There are two possible explanations for the
(10.3%). finding of hearing cultural identity not emerging as
a separate factor. The first explanation is related to
sample bias. Although this study involved a large sam-
Discussion
ple, all participants had some degree of hearing loss,
The goal of this study was to develop and validate the and the majority were signers with some degree of
DAS, a new measure of cultural identity for deaf/hh involvement with the Deaf community, even though
populations. The underlying assumption of the DAS non-signing (oral) participants were recruited).
is that acculturation is a process by which individuals Therefore, it is possible that if this measure was ad-
acquire and maintain characteristics of Deaf culture ministered to more oral deaf/hh people or even hear-
while simultaneously acquiring and maintaining char- ing people who have never been exposed to deaf
acteristics of the hearing, predominant culture. There- culture, the factor structure might emerge as distinct
fore, this measure was designed to be bilinear so that it for hearing cultural identity. On the other hand, a sec-
could assess cultural identification and involvement ond explanation is also possible. That is, that true and
with both deaf and hearing cultures independently complete psychological identification with hearing
of each other. The DAS is structured to have several people often does not occur in the deaf/hh population
subscales each of which measure a single dimension of (no matter what their cultural affiliation is) because
acculturation, so that future researchers can examine hearing loss often creates a psychological sense of
these dimensions independently of the others. How ‘‘I’m different’’ from other hearing people. Indeed,
each of these dimensions operate in each individual many deaf/hh individuals indicate an awareness that
may be influenced by the context in which individuals they are not, nor ever will be fully hearing (save for
live. It is also hypothesized that some dimensions of perhaps advances in hair cell regeneration or nano-
either Deaf or hearing culture may coexist for some technologies) even if they behaviorally participate in
individuals, but others may change at the expense of the hearing world with varying degrees of success.
the parallel dimension in the other culture. For in- Therefore, the range of connectedness or willingness
stance, some individuals may be equally fluent in to endorse a hearing identity for a deaf/hh sample
ASL and in English, whereas others may be more (even with varying experiences with deaf/hearing cul-
fluent in only one language, whereas others may have tures) should vary somewhat from the range of which
marked deaf/hh preferences at the expense of hearing these individuals would be willing to endorse a deaf
preferences because they may be perceived as incom- identity. In fact, these findings are somewhat similar to
patible by some. Overall results from this study in- those in the field of acculturation to new cultures:
dicated that the individual subscales showed strong Foreign-born adult Latino immigrants do not endorse
internal reliabilities, and construct validity for the a U.S. American identity as readily as young Latino
DAS was established through the demonstration of immigrants or first-generation U. S. born Latinos (Zea
its ability to discriminate based on parental hearing et al., 2003). Future research involving oral deaf and
status, educational background, and participant’s use hh people, hearing people with no exposure to the
of informal self-labels. Deaf community, and hearing professionals who work
Construct validity was also established using fac- with Deaf people might help elucidate this issue.
torial analyses, in order to examine if individual items Overall fit for the five-factor correlated model for
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 339

the hearing acculturation subscale (DASh) should ap- as ‘‘D’’eaf in this category than in others (particularly
proach an excellent fit as these issues are resolved. A against those who scored as deaf acculturated on the
greater percent of the variance predicted in explor- DAS). Odds ratio calculations did show that the few
atory factor analyses should also follow these changes. individuals who self-identified as bicultural (an under-
Because the DAS is designed to measure the used label within the deaf community) were most
strength of acculturation to deaf and hearing cultures likely to also score as bicultural on the DAS. On the
separately, it has two overall acculturation scales, DAS, biculturalism is conceptualized as involving
DASd and DASh. Placement into one of four accul- individuals who have a strong sense of connectness/
turation categories is conducted by mathematically belonging and feelings of competence in both cultures.
looking at combinations of the two scores, where those Yet, because Birman (1994) indicates that there are
who are high on the DASh and low on DASd are several ways to be bicultural, and because to some
hearing acculturated, those who are low in both are degree nearly all deaf/hh people need to be bicultural
marginal, those who are high DADd and low DASh to navigate the world around them, the concept of
are deaf acculturated, and those who are high in both biculturalism needs to be further investigated in future
are bicultural. Results from a chi-square analysis research. One way future researchers could explore
which examined how individual self-labels corre- this more using the DAS is possibly experimenting
sponded to DAS categories did show support that with interactional scores (multiplying DASd and
the two are associated in a manner that theoretically DASh), scores to heighten the range, as well as by
would be expected. Odds ratios for the self-labels that exploring various outcomes related to biculturalism.
were most expected to map on each category were Therefore, because the Deaf community is rapidly
calculated to further examine the theoretical structure evolving in how it defines itself, future researchers may
of the DAS. Because the DAS conceptualizes margin- consider revising the DAS or reformulating models for
alism as involving those who do not feel strongly con- how acculturation and psychological identity may be
nected to or competent to either culture: deaf or measured. For instance, there is some movement away
hearing—it was a challenge to consider which ‘‘self- from the traditional grassroots formulation of Deaf
label’’ might best correspond with marginalism. culture as involving certain forms of ASL, experiences
Although traditionally, many scholars have identified of growing up in residential schools, and community
the hh, as the most vulnerable for marginalization life as revolving around the Deaf Club (which is rap-
between the two cultures (Grushkin, 2003; Kent, idly disappearing). Another area for reconsideration in
2003), in this study, we decided to run the analysis reformulating the DAS might be to replace the assess-
with the ‘‘d’’eaf self-label because the hh/hearing- ment of historical knowledge, with knowledge of cul-
impaired labels better mapped with hearing accultur- tural expectations in the cultural competence subscale.
ation than marginalism. Results did show support for Even though many measures of acculturation used
this self-label as being strongly associated with mar- with other ethnic groups often include knowledge of
ginalism over other acculturation categories on the one’s cultural history, with deaf/hh people, knowledge
DAS. Nevertheless, because marginalization is one of of historical events may be more tied to access to in-
the largest predictors for poor mental health outcomes formation rather than a reflection of one’s true cultural
(Phinney, Lochner, & Murphy, 1990), future studies competence. The authors hope to consider some of
should further examine this issue to see what factors these ideas in future revisions of the DAS.
might be associated with marginalization of this pop- As mentioned earlier, several researchers have al-
ulation. ready contacted the first author requesting permission
Another interesting finding was related to the as- to use the DAS; some have asked whether there is
sociation between self-labels of those who were placed a signed version of the DAS available. Initial develop-
in the bicultural category. Although within this cate- ment of the DAS involved the development of a self-
gory, the majority of those who scored as Bicultural report, pencil/paper task only. Although the authors
self-identified as ‘‘D’’eaf—they were less likely to score of this study did consider developing a parallel version
340 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

in ASL, it was noted in the Glickman (1993) study One area not addressed in this study was further
that even though an ASL version was made available, examination of how self-reported levels of language
a high percentage of his participants ended up pre- competence on the DAS would compare with actual
ferring the pencil/paper task because it was less cum- scores of linguistic competence in the field. It is un-
bersome. Nevertheless, because Glickman did his clear how accurate self-reported competence is related
work before DVD technology was readily available, it to competence that is measured using other existing
does make sense the future revisions of the DAS might tools such as the American Sign Language Proficiency
include a signed version, particularly if the study were Interview (see http://www.ASLTA.org) or even stan-
to involve younger and/or less educated samples. Use dardized reading/writing assessments. Nevertheless,
with a qualified interpreter would be another accept- one interesting finding in this study was that for this
able option, should a signed version of the DAS be sample—written literacy and spoken literacy (ability
unavailable to the researcher. In this case, results to speak and lipread) were found to be separate pro-
should be used with caution as variations in transla- cesses and therefore, emerged as separate factors. This
tions could run the risk of data not being standardized. will come as no surprise for most professionals who
Even though the DAS could certainly become work with the deaf/hh people. Still, it is helpful to
a stronger measure with revisions, it still has many know that although both skills may be useful when
possibilities for use in its current form. It would be interacting with the hearing world, they do not nec-
useful to researchers interested in examining bicultur- essarily subsume one another.
alism among deaf/hh, as well as which aspects of Deaf One unexpected but rewarding outcome of this
or hearing cultures are easily integrated for this pop- study was the realization that the DAS could have
ulation, and which are not. It would also be useful for practical applications beyond its research use. For ex-
understanding how the degree of affiliation to each ample, the DAS could be used by students taking deaf
culture impacts overall functioning and mental health, culture classes as a means of examining where they
as well as to understand which kinds of socialization/ themselves stand in regard to both cultures. Although
cultural experiences are conducive to a healthy sense Turner (1994) cautions against researchers ‘‘bingo-
of self, as well as educational and employment success. carding’’ deaf people (i.e., using a checklist approach
The DAS has many applications for researchers to concretely define culture or people participating in
who are interested in understanding how cultural a culture, which are evolving entities), sometimes writ-
identities interact with or impact on various subgroups ing things down and/or scoring them in a concrete
within the deaf community, such as new signers, eth- form provides an opportunity to examine oneself more
nic minorities, the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgen- clearly. Thus, the DAS has also been successfully used
dered individuals. For example, one particular group for classroom purposes (not as part of this study) at
within the deaf community that is under-studied are two predominately deaf universities and it has been
new signers. It would be interesting to understand a useful classroom tool for educators teaching deaf
possible psychological stress (acculturative stress) or culture.
even psychological benefits that may be associated with In sum, as an overall measure of acculturation to
acculturating to the deaf community and learning sign deaf and hearing cultures, the DAS is ready to be used
language. For these individuals, the DAS would be by researchers and has been shown to differentiate
a useful tool to both assess the acculturative process between differing types of acculturation among
as well as the mental health outcomes related to this deaf/hh people. Results from this study give evidence
process. Another potential area for future accultura- that deaf/hh people are as diverse and heterogeneous
tion studies could include hearing family members as any other cultural group. Still, we hope that future
and significant others of deaf/hh individuals as these use of the DAS will further contribute to the growing
also might acculturate to some degree to Deaf culture. evidence that a Deaf culture truly exists and is alive
These hearing participants could allow further exam- and thriving amongst deaf/hh individuals. Finally, we
ination of the DASh. believe that this study of deaf/hh people further
 The Deaf
The Deaf Acculturation Scale 341

contributes to our understanding of how various fac- Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation
tors (both physical and environmental) interact with scale for Mexican American normal and clinical popula-
tions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199–217.
the development of social identity in general. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications
(2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Note Felix-Ortiz, M., Newcomb, M. B., & Meyers, H. (1994). A
multidimensional measure of cultural identity for Latino
1. Previous writers have used the convention of using the
and Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-
uppercase ‘‘D’’ in Deaf when referring to the cultural aspects of
ences, 16, 99–115.
deafness, and the lowercase ‘‘d’’ when discussing the audiolog-
Fisher, L. C., & McWhirter, J. J. (2001). The Deaf identity
ical aspects of deafness. In this paper, we are conceptualizing
development scale: A revision and validation. Journal of
deaf people as exhibiting a range of cultural experiences. There-
Counseling Psychology, 48, 355–358.
fore, in order to remain more inclusive of varying types of deaf
Gannon, J. (1981). Deaf heritage, a narrative history of Deaf Amer-
people, we will use the lowercase ‘‘d’’ when talking about deaf
ica. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
people in general, as well as when we are talking about the
Glickman, N. S. (1993). Deaf identity development: Construction
audiological condition of deafness. Use of the uppercase ‘‘D’’
and validation of a theoretical model. (Unpublished doctoral
will be reserved for when we are specifically talking about deaf
dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
people who are culturally Deaf or Deaf acculturated.
Glickman, N. S., & Carey, J. C. (1993). Measuring Deaf cultural
identities: A preliminary investigation. Rehabilitative Psy-
chology, 38, 275–283.
Conflict of Interest Grosjean, F. (1992). The bilingual and bicultural person in the
hearing and the deaf world. Sign Language Studies, 77,
No conflicts of interest were reported. 307–320.
Grushkin, D. A. (2003). The dilemma of the hard of hearing
References within the U.S. deaf community. In L. Monaghan, C.
Schmaling, K. Nakamura, & G. H. Turner (Eds.), Many
Bahan, B. (1994). Comment on Turner: A view from the deaf ways to be deaf (pp. 114–140). Washington, DC: Gallaudet
world. Sign Language Studies, 84, 241–249. University Press.
Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and self-esteem in Higgins, P. (1980). Outsiders in a hearing world. Beverly Hills,
deaf adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, CA: Sage.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory,
494–502.
research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
Helms, J. (1996). Toward a methodology for measuring and
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
assessing racial as distinguished from ethnic identity. In
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and
G. Sodowsky & J. Impara (Eds.), Multicultural assessment
goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psy- in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 143–192). Lincoln,
chological Bulletin, 88, 588–600. NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Bienvenu, M. J., & Colonomos, B. (1988). Introduction to Deaf Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. (1989). Ethnicity and socialization
culture: Identity. Silver Spring, MD: Sign Media. [Videotape]. in a classroom for deaf children. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a mul- sociolinguistics of the Deaf community (pp. 41–83). New York,
ticultural society. In E. Trickett, R. Watts, & D. Birman NY: Academic Press.
(Eds.), Human diversity, perspectives on people in context. Kannapell, B. (1993). Language choice-identity choice. Burtons-
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ville, MD: Linstock Press Dissertation Series.
Birman, D., & Zea, M. C. (1996). The development of a multidi- Kent, B. A. (2003). Identity issues for hard-of-hearing adoles-
mensional acculturation scale. Unpublished manuscript. cents aged, 11 (13), and 15, in mainstreamed settings. Jour-
Bulwer, J. (1648). Philocophus: Or, the deafe and dumbe mans nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 315–324.
friend. London, UK: Humphrey and Moseley. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. (1994). The African American
Cortes, D. E., Rogler, L. H., & Malgady, R. G. (1994). Bicul- acculturation scale: Development, reliability, and validity.
Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 104–127.
turality among Puerto Rican adults in the United States.
Leigh, I., Marcus, A., Dobosh, P., & Allen, T. (1998). Deaf/
American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 707–721.
hearing identity paradigms: Modification of the Deaf iden-
Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro to Black conversion experience:
tity development scale. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World,
Education, 3, 330–338.
20(9), 13–27. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Society for
Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 302–318.
original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., &
Sciences, 17, 275–304. Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Development of a short
342 Journal of Deaf
Deaf Studies
Studies and
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education16:3
16:3Summer
Summer2011
2011

acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Be- Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., &
havioral Sciences, 9, 183–205. Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial
Markowitz, H., & Woodward, J. Language and the maintenance identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial
of ethnic boundaries in the deaf community. In R. Wilber identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2,
(Ed.), Communication and cognition, 11, 2–17. 18–39.
Maxwell, D., & Zea, M. C. (1998). The Deaf Acculturation Scale Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Ste-
(DAS): Development, reliability and validity. Poster session phenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psycho-
presented at the 106th Annual convention of the American logical Assessment, 12, 77–88.
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Stinson, M., & Kluwin, T. (1996). Social orientations toward
Maxwell-McCaw, D. (2001). Acculturation and psychological deaf and hearing peers among deaf adolescents in local
well-being in deaf and hard-of-hearing people (Unpublished public high schools. In P. Higgins & J. Nash (Eds.),
doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: The George Wash- Understanding deafness socially: Continuities in research and
ington University. theories. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Mendoza, R. H. (1989). An empirical scale to measure type and Stokoe, W. (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on
degree of acculturation in Mexican-American adolescents linguistic principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 372–385. Press.
Mitchell, R., & Karchmer, M. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural
percent: Parental hearing status of Deaf and hard of hearing involvement and adjustment in Hispanic-American youths.
students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4,
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 353–365.
138–163.
Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde,
Padden, C. (1996). From the cultural to the bicultural: The
M. D. (1978). Theory and measurement of acculturation.
modern Deaf community. In I. Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural
Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 12, 113–130.
and language diversity and the Deaf experience. New York,
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
NY: Cambridge University Press.
inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.),
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices
Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edi-
Phinney, J. S. (1992). Multigroup ethnic identity measure. Jour-
tion: National norming and performance standards for deaf
nal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In
Deaf Education, 5, 337–348.
K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Accultur-
Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of
ation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research.
‘‘being Chinese’’ and ‘‘being American’’: Variation among
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Phinney, J., Lochner, B., & Murphy, R. (1990). Ethnic identity Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural
and psychological adjustment. In A. Stiffman & L. Davis Psychology, 31, 302–332.
(Eds.), Ethnic issues in adolescent mental health (pp. 53–72). Turner, G. (1994). How is deaf culture? Toward a revised notion
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. of a fundamental concept. Sign Language Studies, 83,
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic 103–126.
Books. Wald, R., & Knutsen, J. (2000). Deaf cultural identity of ado-
Sellers, R. M., Caldwell, C. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K. H., & lescents with and without cochlear implants. Annals of
Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity, racial discrim- Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology, 12(Suppl. 185),
ination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among 87–89.
African American young adults. Journal of Health and Weinberg, N., & Sterritt, M. (1986). Disability and identity: A
Social Behavior, 43, 302–317. study of identity patterns in adolescents with hearing
Sellers, R. M., & Chavous, T. M. (2003). The role of racial impairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 95–102.
identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Per- Woodward, J. (1982). How you gonna get to heaven if you can’t
sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. talk with Jesus: On depathologizing deafness. Silver Spring,
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., MD: T.J. Publishers.
& Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional inventory of Zea, M. C., Anser-Self, K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. (2003). The
black identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability abbreviated multidimensional acculturation scale: Empirical
and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- validation with two Latino/Latina samples. Cultural Diver-
chology, 73, 805–815. sity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 107–126.