When assessing individuals from diverse backgrounds, APA ethical principles emphasize the consideration of language and culture when selecting appropriate measures. Research among hearing, English-speaking individuals has shown the effects in identifying cognitive deficits when language, culture, and educational background are not considered in the selection and administration of measures (Ardilla, 2007). Among the Deaf community in the US, a minority group with a unique culture and language (American Sign Language: ASL), there have been few attempts to adapt existing English cognitive measures. Factors complicating this include research resources given the limited number of neuropsychologists and researchers who understand both the complexities of the measures as well as the linguistic and cultural factors within the Deaf population. The goal of the current project is to develop a culturally informed interpretation of a cognitive screening tool for appropriate use with older Deaf adults.

Item selection was informed by MMSE data from Dean et al. (2009) and methods utilized by Atkinson et al. (2015). Items selection occurred through consultation with three neuropsychologists and graduate peers with either native signing abilities or demonstrated ASL fluency, as well as Deaf identities, cultural affiliation and or community engagement. Selection considered the potential for translation errors, particularly related to equivalence of translation from a spoken modality to a signed. Items were categorized into the following domains: Orientation, Attention, Memory, Language, Executive Functioning, Visuospatial, and Performance Validity. Two native signers (Deaf interpreters) provided formal translation of the items. The measure was piloted with 20 deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) adult signers (ages M=41.10, SD=5.50, Range=31-48). Items were prerecorded to standardize the administration, which was shown to participants through the screenshare function of Zoom software.

The average performance was 100.80 (SD=3.91)/ 105 possible points. Within the memory domain, some errors, especially for word selection on delayed recall, were noted which may be related to sign choice and dialect. Additionally, with culture-specific episodic memory items, participants 35% of participants were unable to provide a correct answer with qualitative responses indicating this information may be more familiar to a subset of the Deaf community that had attended Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. There was a significant positive relationship between ASL fluency, determined by the ASL-Comprehension Test, and performance on the cognitive screener (r(18)=.54, p=.01) while age of onset of deafness (r(18)=-.16, p=.51) and age of ASL acquisition (r(18)= .21, p=.37), were not significant.

Results of this preliminary project yielded a measure that benefited from inclusion of content experts in the field during the process of interpretation and translation. It appears appropriate for Deaf signers who are proficient in ASL. The pattern of correlations suggests the measure may be appropriate for use with fluent signers with experience in ASL acquisition. Further development of the measure should focus on appropriate items that address the diversity of the Deaf experience as well as continue to explore inclusive translation approaches.