Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 4;20(4):408–418. doi: 10.1093/deafed/env021

Table 1.

Participants’ background characteristics

ID Gender Race/ ethnicity Age Grade School Parents’ hearing status Parents’ communication method Quality of communication with parents Self-reported English reading skills
1 Female White 16 9th Deaf school Both hearing Sign language Good Good
2 Female Non-White 17 11th Deaf school Both hearing Spoken language Poor Poor
3 Female White 17 11th Deaf school Mother deaf, father hearing Both sign and spoken language Good Good
4 Male White 16 11th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
5 Male White 16 10th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
6 Male White 16 11th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
7 Male White 18 12th Deaf school Both hearing Sign language Good Poor
8 Male Non-White 18 11th Deaf school Both hearing Spoken language Good Good
9 Male White 18 12th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
10 Female White 18 12th Deaf school Both hearing Sign language Good Good
11 Male Non-White 18 12th Deaf school Both hearing Spoken language Poor Poor
12 Male Non-White 18 12th Deaf school Both hearing Both sign and spoken language Good Good
13 Male White 16 9th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Poor
14 Female White 18 12th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
15 Female White 16 11th Deaf school Both hearing Sign language Good Good
16 Male White 15 10th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Poor
17 Female White 16 10th Deaf school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
18 Female White 19 12th Mainstream school Both deaf Sign language Good Good
19 Female Non-White 17 11th Mainstream school Mother deaf, father hearing Sign language Good Good
20 Male White 14 9th Mainstream school Both hearing Both sign and spoken language Good Good