SCPI-eng


		Signed Language Assessment

	from : Tobias Haug: “Review of Sign Language Assessment Instruments”, an earlier version of that paper 2005. Sign Communication Proficiency Interview The Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) uses a conversational approach with the purpose to assess sign language communication skills, considering both function and form and support people in the development of their sign language communication skills (Caccamise & Newell 1995, 1999a; Newell et al 1983). The SCPI is based on the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI)/Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), which was developed to assess the communicative competence in a foreign or second language. The LPI/OPI was adapted for the SCPI. The SCPI has been developed at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), Rochester Institute of Technology, USA. A slightly revised version has been developed at Gallaudet University, Washington D.C. An adapted version of Gallaudet University’s SCPI is the British Columbia Sign Language Competence Interview Scale. In the following, only the SCPI version developed at the NTID will be presented. The SCPI seemed to be broadly used in different settings, ranging from staff at vocational rehabilitation settings, university faculty, students, and many more (Caccamise & Newell 1999a: 1). The interview takes about 15 to 25 minutes. Through its character of a conversational approach, it assesses both language production and comprehension of the test taker. Communicative competence is defined by how well a person can communicate with other people, considering both function and form. The design of the SCPI is a one-to-one interview situation with the interviewer and the test-taker. They converse/talk about different topics and contents varying in accordance with the interests, job responsibilities, and communications needs of the candidate. The performance was videotaped and subsequently rated by three raters who are familiar with the SCPI methodology. The SCPI rating scale is “a predetermined standard scale based on highly skilled, knowledgeable native or non-native signer” (Caccamise & Newell 1995: 33). It is rather a criterion-referenced test, because each candidate’s performance is compared to a predetermined, standard performance scale, which is based on the ideal language user than to other candidates (Newell et al 1983). The rating scale rates signing that occurs along a natural sign language continuum, from ASL to more English-like forms. The different rating levels of the SCPI Rating Scale range from “Superior Plus” over a eleven point scale to “No Functional Skills”. Here a few examples: Superior Plus: to be able to have a fully shared and natural conversation, with in-depth elaboration for both social and work topics and all aspects of signing are native-like. [...] No Functional Skills: maybe to be able to provide short single sign and ‘primarily’ fingerspelled responses to some basic questions signed at slow rate with extensive repetitions and rephrasing (Caccamise & Newell 1999a: 6). The results of the SCPI may be used to assist in planning signed language skill- development opportunities. The important concepts for assessing sign language communication skills focus on form and function. Form focuses on (1) vocabulary knowledge, (2) production of signing, (3) fluency, (4) grammar, and (5) comprehension. On the functional side, the pragmatic/functional use of signing for work and social communication is assessed, including if the candidate can have a conversation, as well as sociolinguistic/cultural knowledge (Caccamise & Newell 1999a). After a candidate has been interviewed and rated, he/she will have a follow-up meeting with the interviewer in order to review the videotaped interview, discuss the candidate’s skills, and make him/her suggestions for improving sign language communication skills. Reliability and validity for the Sign Communication Proficiency Interview have not been reported in-depth. One study about the reliability of the SCPI has been reported. Validity has not yet been reported. A reliability study for the SCPI, conducted in 1996 by the NTID, focuses on the following three questions: “(1) how consistent are raters in interpreting the SCPI Rating Scale?, (2) how consistent are ratings within SCPI Ratings Teams (3 rater per team)?, and (3) how consistent are ratings across SCPI Rating Teams” (Caccamise & Newell 1999b: 29). The results reveal that for “(1) the NTID SCPI raters are able to consistently interpret the SCPI Rating Scale, (2) ratings by three raters within SCPI Rating Teams are consistent with one another, and (3) reveals preliminary results that ratings across NTID SCPI Rating Teams are consistent” (Caccamise & Newell 1999b: 34-35). Further reliability studies are planned. Three types of rating of the videotaped interview have been reported. For example in the first one, three raters watch a videotape together, and each of them provides independent rating. Assuming that all three raters are in agreement (all within one half-level of one another), they write a report that provides an official rating (all raters need to agree on one rating), a description of the candidate’s sign language communication skills, and suggestions for improving these skills if appropriate. This process of rating took three raters 1 to 1 1/2 hours (Caccamise & Newell 1999c). Because the SCPI uses a conversational approach, a one-to-one situation, it might be more relaxing for the candidate than a typical test situation where he/she needs to react to test items. Additionally, the SCPI does not focus on the production and comprehension of specific linguistic structures in ASL, it rather provides a broader view on the communicative competence of the candidate. The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) offers trainee workshops for the SCPI. Among the strengths of the SCPI are that (1) it is interactive, (2) it emphasizes on communicative functioning, (3) the interviewer and the test-taker use communicative strategies, e.g. asking, answering, clarifying questions, turn-taking, (4) communicative needs of the candidate determined specific topics discussed, (5) assist in planning sign communication skills development opportunities appropriate for each candidate. Among the weakness of the SCPI is that (1) it does not provide in in-depth information on the psychometric properties. References: Caccamise, F. & W. Newell (1995). “Evaluating Sign Language Communication Skills: The Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI)”. In R. Myers (ed.), Standards of Care for the Delivery of Mental Health Services to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons, pp. 33-35. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Caccamise, F. & W. Newell (1999a). Section 13: An Overview of the Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI): History, Development, Methodology, & Use. Manuscript, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. Caccamise, F. & W. Newell (1999b). Section 5: Skills Important for Effective Sign Language Communication and Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) Rating Levels. Manuscript, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. Caccamise, F. & W. Newell (1999c). Section 9: SCPI Information E-Mails. Manuscript, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K. & B. R. Holcomb (1983). “Adaptation of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) for Assessing Sign Communicative Competence”. Sign Language Studies 41: 311-352. Follow this link to a complete bibliography. For more information regarding this test, please contact Frank Caccamise at the NTID in Rochester or visit the SCPI homepage . Questions, suggestions, or comments? Please e-mail to mail@signlang-assessment.info This website is maintained by Tobias Haug - Last update: March 2007 [home] [top]