INTRODUCTION
Professionals play an important role in supporting the growth and achievements of their students with a disability. Research has demonstrated the essential role that teachers play in facilitating these students’ achievements (Rowan et al., 2002; McCaffrey et al., 2003; Angelides and Aravi, 2006), providing learning opportunities (Donne and Zigmond, 2008; Brown and Paatsch, 2010), and meeting their students’ needs in teaching practices (Vermeulen et al., 2012) for students with a disability.
More importantly, research has demonstrated a noteworthy relationship between teachers’ assessment approach and students’ academic performance (Odden et al., 2004), whereby the assessment can serve as a potent tool for addressing achievement gaps in academic performance among students with a disability. In this study, teachers are recognized as the most essential factor in developing students with a disability.
Although research has demonstrated the significant role of teachers in the learning and performance of students with a disability (Rowan et al., 2002; McCaffrey et al., 2003; Angelides and Aravi, 2006; Donne and Zigmond, 2008; Brown and Paatsch, 2010), they face a variety of challenges in using assessments with their students with a disability, particularly in the assessment of knowledge (Larwood and LaGrande, 2004; Rahim and Yusof, 2022), designing assessments (Cawthon, 2015), selection and application of assessment tools (Bonner and Chen, 2009; Simms, 2018), utilization of assessment results (Espinosa and López, 2007), and collaboration with the families of students with a disability (Robinshaw and Evans, 2003; Jackson et al., 2008; Hyde et al., 2010).
However, little research has been conducted on professionals’ needs and support in special education (SPED), particularly concerning vocabulary assessments. In response to this situation, the present study aims to determine professionals’ needs and support in SPED, particularly in vocabulary assessments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Vocabulary refers to the words that are necessary for efficient communication, including both the words we use when speaking (expressive vocabulary) and the words we understand when listening (receptive vocabulary) (Neuman and Dwyer, 2009). The acquisition of language by students with a disability is substantially influenced by vocabulary, which is a fundamental aspect of language (Cameron, 2001). According to Harmon et al. (2009), the growth of students’ vocabulary is a crucial component of their language development.
The National Reading Panel (NRP) report, conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, 2000), and the subsequent implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy resulted in an emphasis on the five essential components of reading: vocabulary, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension. Furthermore, vocabulary plays a significant role in various academic subjects at the school level, such as language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Therefore, vocabulary is essential for both literacy and subject-specific training. The understanding of vocabulary is closely connected to the capacity to read the written language and acquire conceptual knowledge (Anderson and Freebody, 1981).
Although vocabulary plays a vital role in students’ learning and development, students face challenges in acquiring and using vocabulary. For example, students who have learning difficulties and are enrolled in regular or SPED programs have the challenge of acquiring unfamiliar and difficult concepts that are primarily conveyed through textbooks and lectures (Stump et al., 1992; Bryant et al., 2003; Jitendra et al., 2004; Vaughn et al., 2009).
Also, students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) have poor language skills, including vocabulary (Traxler, 2000; Wilbur, 2008). Students with a disability frequently encounter delays in vocabulary acquisition and subsequent difficulties in cumulative vocabulary comprehension; hence, a concerted effort is required to assess the students’ progress in vocabulary acquisition and comprehension to perform well academically and in their future endeavors.
Assessment plays an essential role in the field of SPED and is carried out for several goals, such as identifying potential problems with language (including delays in vocabulary), determining eligibility for SPED placement, designing treatment plans, and tracking progress [American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2000]. These goals frequently need several assessment methods, including standardized examinations, reports from parents/caregivers or teachers, and informal approaches such as language sample analysis and dynamic evaluation (Watkins and DeThorne, 2000). In fact, language assessment is a systematic process employed in SPED to collect information about the students, evaluate a student’s abilities (Swanson and De La Paz, 1998), and enable informed decision-making (Gearheart and Gearheart, 1990). Language assessment provides information about a student’s abilities and needs that teachers use to set goals and identify areas in language for focused instruction that will improve the vocabulary and literacy skills of students with a disability.
Although individuals with disabilities have allowable accommodations to make language assessments more accessible, these accommodations fail to adequately address the linguistic or experiential gaps for individuals with a disability, such as DHH (Luft, 2022). A few assessment tools that focus on spoken language development and are normal for DHH individuals do exist (Moog and Stein, 2008). According to Simms (2018), general language assessments are not valid for individuals with a disability, such as DHH. However, many of the language assessments that are normal for students with disabilities, such as DHH students, only assess a specific component of their spoken language because this assessment typically uses norms based on typical students (Graham and Shuler-Krause, 2020). For instance, the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories, which was initially designed for typical students and was later modified for use in sign language (SL), focuses on assessing the student’s lexicon/vocabulary (Anderson and Reilly, 2002).
Using the same assessments for all students, including students with a disability, raises many potential concerns, particularly the question of whether or not the students’ actual literacy capabilities are being identified (Simms, 2018; Greene-Woods and Delgado, 2020). An essential element of effective vocabulary assessment is ensuring that assessment activities are closely aligned with the goals that prioritize student performance (Ayala et al., 2008; Valencia, 2008; Wiley, 2008). Studies indicate that the use of high-quality classroom assessments is associated with improved student academic performance (Black and Wiliam, 1998; White and Frederiksen, 1998; Kingston and Nash, 2011).
As a matter of fact, some assessment tools explicitly discourage their use for evaluating individuals with a disability, such as DHH (Cawthon and Online Research Lab, 2009). Because of these issues, there is a significant risk that individuals with a disability may be incorrectly diagnosed and provided with schooling that is insufficient and unsuitable for addressing all the needs arising from these disabilities (Cawthon and Online Research Lab, 2009; Bowen and Probst, 2023).
Besides assessments, teachers and other professionals, such as speech pathologists in SPED, also play a crucial role in implementing practices in SPED and supporting these students’ academic achievement. For instance, research has demonstrated that the extent of a teacher’s expertise in a particular subject area can influence their teaching methods, which, in turn, can have an impact on the academic progress of students (McCutchen et al., 2002; Carlisle et al. 2011).
Several studies have shown a noteworthy relationship between teachers’ assessment methods and the academic performance of students (Rouse and Agbenu, 1998; Odden et al., 2004; Lane et al., 2008), whereby the assessment serves as a potent tool for addressing achievement gaps in academic performance among students with a disability.
According to Stiggins (1998), frequent assessments of students during the learning process enable teachers to adapt their instruction to address students’ learning gaps on time. Notably, SPED teachers must thoroughly understand the assessment process and effectively communicate crucial information to kids and parents (Pierangelo and Giuliani, 2006). Professionals of students with disabilities as teachers are required to demonstrate discipline-specific knowledge in content-area assessments, such as vocabulary assessment [NCLBA, 2001; Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), 2015]. ASHA (2000) guidelines for the role and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) specifically state that a “core role of the school-based speech-language pathologists is to conduct a thorough and balanced speech, language and communication assessment” (p. 17). Therefore, professionals in SPED are responsible for using evidence-based strategies to actively engage individuals with disabled children in vocabulary development. Therefore, the methods for assessing students with a disability in vocabulary knowledge and acquisition are the primary concern.
While it is expected that professionals in SPED will demonstrate a high level of skill in assessing their students, they frequently face various challenges. A recent study by Rahim and Yusof (2022) questioned teachers’ general perception of formative assessments in SPED. The authors reported that the implementation of formative assessments was generally inadequate, and the SPED teachers poorly understood it. Bonner and Chen’s (2009) study shows that SPED professionals lack clarity about the purposes of assessments that can be better accomplished through formative assessments and the provision of formative feedback. In addition, these professionals frequently rely on language assessments for typical people when evaluating the language development of individuals with a disability, which are not valid for these individuals with DHH and other disabilities, according to Simms (2018).
Due to these issues, there is a significant risk that individuals with a disability may be incorrectly diagnosed and provided with schooling that is insufficient and unsuitable for addressing all the needs arising from their disabilities.
Consequently, different assessment tools are needed, and professionals need to implement them effectively. Schirmer (1994) claimed that using a variety of assessments yields a precise picture of the whole child. Professionals for students with a disability should employ many assessment methods to accurately assess the multifaceted nature of students’ vocabulary proficiency, as advised by the NRP (NICHD, 2000). Professionals need to be able to assess all aspects of students’ language development, including vocabulary semantics, pragmatics, and syntax (Graham and Shuler-Krause, 2020). Professionals should also be able to use multiple assessments for assessing vocabulary. However, professionals in SPED constantly express their need for additional professional developments in the area of assessment (DeLuca and Klinger, 2010). They need more support from their work to enhance their assessment knowledge and skills with the aim of assisting students in SPED (Rahim and Yusof, 2022).
Most notably, most professionals who have a background in speech-language pathology (Bodner-Johnson and Sass-Lehrer, 2003; Stredler-Brown, 2010) often assess individuals’ language who are deaf, and their primary language is SL, even though they are not fluent in it (Moeller, 2000). Importantly, most of those professionals, such as SLPs, cannot communicate with some individuals with a disability in their native language, such as SL (Simms, 2018). Therefore, many of those professionals often lack an understanding of the linguistic, literacy, and academic requirements for students with a disability, specifically students with deafness (Larwood and LaGrande, 2004).
The professionals with limited knowledge of individuals with a disability language should be supported by providing them with training programs, such as SL and English bilingual workshops. This will enable them to obtain a better understanding of the linguistic needs of individuals with a disability such as deaf people, ultimately reducing the potential harm and risk of language deprivation.
Professionals have to employ technology in vocabulary assessments. For example, professionals with a disability should be able to integrate technology into assessments and curricular contexts (Kumar and Vigil, 2011). They must possess the ability to recognize the necessary technologies required to support the assessments and to outline how students will use these technologies and empower their students to choose and use suitable technologies to meet their requirements (Cennamo et al., 2012). In order to effectively assess students with a disability, professionals require specialized training in instructional technology to effectively integrate the curriculum with assessments (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). It is necessary to assist professionals with understanding how to integrate technology effectively into vocabulary assessment and pedagogical experiences. Despite the importance of technology services for professionals using vocabulary assessments, there is still little information regarding the need for professionals to be aware of the existence of services.
Professionals must know how to use the information obtained from vocabulary assessments. For example, they are required to use the performance data for students with a disability as a guide for their instruction [Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 2004; Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 2015]. They can administer vocabulary, such as SL assessments to document the SL skills of individuals who use SL for instruction and communication.
Unfortunately, the majority of professionals lack knowledge of the psychometric properties of tests, which hinders their ability to make informed assessments regarding the suitability of particular assessments and to understand how to assess and interpret test results when their students come from linguistically diverse backgrounds (Espinosa and López, 2007). However, professionals often find it challenging to design assessments. For instance, Cawthon (2015) stated that designing assessments is one of the more challenging tasks, particularly for deaf students (Cawthon, 2015). Borders et al. (2018) argued that assessing educational skills in students with a disability, such as DHH students, can be complicated. The impact of communication, language, reading, and writing delays might undermine the accuracy of assessments and the validity of the results (Luckner and Bowen, 2006; Cawthon and Online Research Lab, 2009). These assessments’ findings have significantly influenced the students’ placement and access to the general education curriculum (Luckner and Bowen, 2006; Cawthon and Online Research Lab, 2009). Therefore, professionals need to practice administering and interpreting assessments (Pizzo and Chilvers, 2016). Those professionals who received training and collected student performance data demonstrated increased accuracy and fluency on timed vocabulary quizzes (Stump et al., 1992).
Professionals are required to collaborate effectively with the families of children with a disability in assessments. For example, professionals must provide precise, accurate information to families to enable them to make well-informed decisions on their children’s language and communication (Hyde et al., 2010). However, there is a lack of collaboration between professionals and families. For instance, families reported that professionals working with their children who are DHH showed an unwillingness to provide them with comprehensive information (Eleweke and Rodda, 2000) because some of the professionals might not be concerned for the families as a whole (Robinshaw and Evans, 2003).
Jackson et al.’s (2008) study indicated that families of children with a disability experienced significant pressure from professionals when faced with the decision of selecting a language and manner of communication (Jackson et al., 2008). However, Luckner and Velaski (2004) examined the difficulties encountered by families, such as bias and the need for knowledge on the part of medical professionals in offering a wide array of communication techniques. Families reported feeling supported by educational professionals who demonstrated active listening and expressed trust in the family’s capacity to address life’s challenges by offering skills and resources (Luckner and Velaski, 2004). Therefore, professionals for individuals with a disability require specialized training and support on how to collaborate with the families of individuals with a disability in the vocabulary assessment process. This could help professionals work effectively with families by providing them with adequate information and involving them in the assessment process because the limitation of support professionals could influence families’ decisions and roles regarding their children’s needs (Eleweke and Rodda, 2000; Morton, 2001; Zaidman-Zait, 2008; Jamieson et al., 2011).
In sum, professionals need to be provided with support to deal with the needs and challenges that lie ahead, particularly in implementing vocabulary assessments. Supporting professionals is crucial for ensuring practical assessment and fostering a positive learning environment for individuals with a disability. Without appropriate support for professionals in vocabulary assessments, the Department of Education cannot verify that teachers of students with a disability have the necessary knowledge to perform vocabulary assessments and instruction successfully. More support for professionals in vocabulary assessments may encourage teachers during assessments.
Indeed, little research to date has been conducted on professionals’ needs and support in SPED, particularly in relation to vocabulary assessments; hence, the application of vocabulary assessments in Saudi Arabia is less well-known. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate professionals’ needs and support in SPED, particularly concerning vocabulary assessments in the KSA. This study was designed to address the following research questions:
Q1. What are the most needed vocabulary assessment supports perceived by professionals for students with disabilities in the KSA?
Q2. Are there any statistically significant differences between the professionals’ needs and perceptions in vocabulary assessments and their characteristics (i.e. training, majors, and regions) in the KSA?
METHOD
Participants
A total of 375 professionals who work with individuals with disabilities completed an electronic survey that was made available via the Google Forms website. An additional 21 “professionals” participated in the survey, but were excluded from the analysis because the focus of this study was only on professionals who work with individuals with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Of the total of 375, 192 were females (51.2%), and 183 were males (48.8%). In terms of their work, 164 (43.7%) stated that they work in the private sector (primarily centers and clinics); 119 specified their workplace was in the government sector (31.7%), and 92 (24.5%) said their workplace was in a general hospital.
All respondents were asked to identify their regions. Most respondents were from the central region (n = 90; 24.5%) and the northern region (n = 88; 23.9%). Other answers were from the western (n = 76; 20.7%), southern (n = 58; 15.8%), and eastern regions (n = 55; 14.9%).
Participants’ educational levels were as follows: 55.5% (n = 208) had a bachelor’s degree, 28% (n = 108) had some college (diploma after earning a BA), and 15.7% (n = 59) had a graduate degree (MA or PhD). With regard to major, half of the participants (50%, n = 185) reported speech and communication disorder (SCD). Also, 164 (44.4%) reported general SPED. An important note is that most participants (80%) had one chance for training or none in vocabulary assessments, and only 20% had more than one training chance in vocabulary assessments.
Most respondents (187, or 49.9%) answered that they had participated in only one training course, and 113 (30.1%) had not participated in any professional training courses for vocabulary assessments. Only 75 respondents (20%) attended a training course more than once.
Materials and procedure
A survey was used to gather quantitative data from professionals of students with disabilities in the KSA. The survey had three sections. The first section explained the purpose of the study and provided the consent form for participants. The second section asked the respondents to provide basic demographic and professional information. Items in this area included gender, major, educational level, workplace, regions, and training in vocabulary assessments. The third section contained 11 items that were developed to focus on the many dimensions of the research question. Reviewing relevant studies (i.e. DeLuca and Klinger, 2010; Jamieson et al., 2011; Kumar and Vigil, 2011; Cennamo et al., 2012; Pizzo and Chilvers, 2016; Rahim and Yusof, 2022) helped us develop the third section.
The final version, titled “Vocabulary Assessment Needs for Professionals of Individuals with Disability,” consisted of 11 statements scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important, and 5 = very important). The last section of the survey provided an open-ended question asking professionals to add additional comments if desired. The survey was estimated to take around 10 min to compete.
Content validity
To check the survey’s accuracy before distributing it, it was sent to a pilot group of KSA teachers in SPED and professionals in SCDs (n = 4) to review the initial drafts of the survey. Revisions were made as a result of their recommendations.
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was computed to assess the internal consistency of the 11 items addressing professionals’ needs in vocabulary assessments in this study (r = 0.934), suggesting that these items have relatively high internal consistency (Kline, 2000; Field, 2024).
Data collection
After obtaining ethical approval no. 226/2024 from the Standing Committee for Bioethics Research at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, the study was conducted using the research survey. The survey was electronically distributed to schools, hospitals, and social media websites. The authors corresponded with the administrators by e-mail, requesting them to disseminate the surveys to all eligible professionals for their involvement in the study. All the participants in this study were volunteers. After 3 weeks of distributing the survey, the authors collected all the completed surveys.
Data analysis
In order to answer the two research questions, data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 22.0) program (Pallant, 2013). Descriptive statistics on all demographic data were computed. Then the frequency, percentage, and rating averages for professionals’ responses about vocabulary assessment services needed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = unimportant to 5 = very important) were calculated. For the second research question, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the professionals’ needs and perceptions in vocabulary assessment and their characteristics (i.e. training, majors, and regions).
RESULTS
Research question 1
What are the most needed vocabulary assessment supports perceived by professionals for students with disabilities in the KSA?
Descriptive statistics were used to answer this question. Also, we made the decision to use the respondents’ perceptions by calculating the weighted average value. To calculate this value, we summed the mean values for the items and then divided them by the total number of items (Table 1).
Responses on professionals’ perceptions of vocabulary assessments’ needs and support (ranked by means: highest to lowest).
| N | Survey item | Rating | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VUN (%) | UN (%) | SI (%) | I (%) | VI (%) | Mean | σ | Decision | ||
| 1 | Providing workshops and regular training programs on effective strategies and tools for assessing vocabulary. | 0 (0%) | 25 (6.7%) | 66 (17.6%) | 130 (34.7%) | 154 (41.1%) | 4.10 | 0.91 | High need |
| 2 | Providing opportunities to learn about best practices in assessing students’ vocabulary. | 0 (0%) | 17 (4.5%) | 59 (15.7%) | 146 (38.9%) | 153 (40.8%) | 4.16 | 0.85 | High need |
| 3 | Offering training programs on how to effectively employ technology in assessing vocabulary. | 0 (0%) | 30 (8.0%) | 76 (20.3%) | 138 (36.8%) | 131 (34.9%) | 3.98 | 0.93 | Low need |
| 4 | Providing principles and standards for developing vocabulary measures at different educational stages for students. | 0 (0%) | 39 (10.4%) | 66 (17.4%) | 137 (36.5%) | 133 (35.5%) | 3.97 | 0.97 | Low need |
| 5 | Equipping teachers and specialists with tools and materials for effective evidence-based assessment of vocabulary. | 0 (0%) | 35 (9.3%) | 59 (15.7%) | 132 (35.2%) | 149 (39.7%) | 4.05 | 0.96 | High need |
| 6 | Encouraging collaboration and exchange of best practices in assessments among teachers and language and speech specialists. | 0 (0%) | 34 (9.1%) | 75 (20.0%) | 147 (39.2%) | 119 (31.7%) | 3.93 | 0.93 | Low need |
| 7 | Involving parents in evaluating their child’s vocabulary is important for achieving positive results. | 0 (0%) | 43 (11.5%) | 86 (22.9%) | 129 (34.4%) | 117 (31.2%) | 3.85 | 0.99 | Low need |
| 8 | Encouraging the use of diverse methods for assessing vocabulary, such as formative assessments, summative assessments, portfolio assessments, and performance-based assessments. | 0 (0%) | 34 (9.1%) | 71 (18.9%) | 145 (38.7%) | 125 (33.3%) | 3.96 | 0.94 | Low need |
| 9 | Providing sufficient time for teachers and specialists to conduct and analyze vocabulary assessments. | 0 (0%) | 18 (4.8%) | 68 (18.1%) | 159 (42.4%) | 130 (34.7%) | 4.06 | 0.84 | High need |
| 10 | Standardizing vocabulary measures to fit the Saudi environment. | 0 (0%) | 20 (5.3%) | 68 (18.1%) | 140 (37.3%) | 147 (39.2%) | 4.10 | 0.88 | High need |
| 11 | Having an official entity responsible for developing and monitoring the standardization of vocabulary measures in the Arabic language. | 0 (0%) | 23 (6.1%) | 67 (17.9%) | 146 (38.9%) | 139 (37.1%) | 4.06 | 0.88 | High need |
Note: N = 375; Likert ratings were given values ranging from 1 to 5 corresponding to “VUN” to “VI”; means are based on these values. Decision-weighted average equaled 4.02.
Abbreviations: I, important; SI, somewhat important; UN, unimportant; VI, very important; VUN, very unimportant.
Based on our descriptive analysis, some aspects of support—workshops and regular training programs; best practices in assessing students’ vocabulary; materials for practical, evidence-based assessments of vocabulary; providing professionals with sufficient time to conduct and analyze vocabulary assessments; standardization of vocabulary assessments in the Arabic language; and establishing agency for developing and monitoring the standardization of vocabulary assessments in the surveys—were rated as very important or important by professionals. The average rating scores for these aspects were high and needed support (weighted average of 4.02). However, implementing technology, collaborating with other professionals, involving families, and using a variety of vocabulary assessments obtained the lowest levels of support from professionals for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia (weighted average of 4.02).
Research question 2
Are there any statistically significant differences between the professionals’ needs and perceptions in vocabulary assessments and their characteristics (i.e. training, majors, and regions) in the KSA?
In response to this question about professional training, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the professionals’ needs and perceptions regarding the vocabulary assessments were different based on the training sessions. Participants were classified into three groups (Table 2):
One-way ANOVA for professionals’ level of needing training.
| Professionals’ needs | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 1.144 | 2 | 0.572 | 2.770 | 0.064 |
| Within groups | 76.834 | 372 | 0.207 | ||
| Total | 77.978 | 374 |
Abbreviation: ANOVA, analysis of variance.
Professionals who received more than one training session (n = 75).
Professionals who received only one training session (n = 187).
Professionals who did not receive any training sessions (n = 113).
Table 2 shows that professionals’ perceptions of vocabulary assessments supporting use with individuals who are disabled were not statistically different among these three groups of professionals [F (2,37) = 2.77, P = 0.06]. This result indicates that all professionals, including those who received more than one training session in vocabulary assessment, have similar professional needs in implementing vocabulary assessments.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the professionals’ needs regarding the vocabulary assessments were different based on their major. The results in Table 3 show that professionals’ perceptions of vocabulary assessment support used with individuals who are disabled were statistically different based on the major for professionals [F (3,368) = 4.04, P = 0.008].
One-way ANOVA for professionals’ needs by majors.
| Professionals’ needs | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 2.466 | 3 | 0.822 | 4.048 | 0.008 |
| Within groups | 74.722 | 368 | 0.203 | ||
| Total | 77.188 | 371 |
Abbreviation: ANOVA, analysis of variance.
A post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test indicated that the mean showed that the DHH group had a statistically significant lower level of needs for vocabulary assessment support than another group [mean diff = 0.7045; confidence interval (CI) = 0.1737-1.2354; P = 0.004]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the DHH and SPED (P = 0.064) DHH and SCD (P = 0.098).
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the professionals’ needs regarding the vocabulary assessments were different based on regions. The result in Table 4 shows that professionals’ perceptions of vocabulary assessment support used with individuals who are disabled were statistically different based on their regions [F (4,367) = 3.023, P = 0.01].
One-way ANOVA for professionals’ level of needs by regions.
| Professionals’ needs | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 2.367 | 4 | 0.592 | 3.023 | 0.018 |
| Within groups | 71.839 | 367 | 0.196 | ||
| Total | 74.206 | 371 |
Abbreviation: ANOVA, analysis of variance.
A post hoc Tukey’s HSD test indicated that the mean showed that the professionals from the southern region had statistically significant needs for vocabulary assessment support compared with professionals from other region groups (South vs. Central C. mean diff = 0.937; CI = 0.072-1.801; P = 0.02; South vs. Western mean diff = 1.010; CI = 0.1430-1.878; P = 0.01; South vs. Northern mean diff = 1.014; CI = 0.1487-1.879; P = 0.01; South vs. Eastern mean diff = 0.957; CI = 0.0839-1.830; P = 0.02). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the other regions (P > 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Professionals play a critical role in supporting their students’ growth and achievements. This is especially true for professionals of students with a disability (McCaffrey et al., 2003; Angelides and Aravi, 2006; Donne and Zigmond, 2008; Brown and Paatsch, 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2012). Therefore, this study was undertaken to investigate the needs and perceptions of professionals of students with a disability in regard to the vocabulary assessment support and services provided in the KSA.
The findings of this study indicated that some aspects of support—regular training programs and workshops; providing professionals with materials for practical and sufficient time to conduct and analyze vocabulary assessments; standardization of vocabulary assessments in the Arabic language; and establishing agency for developing and monitoring the standardization of vocabulary assessments in the surveys—were rated as very important or important by professionals. This might mean that most professionals expressed their most needed support for training and adopting appropriate vocabulary assessments that can be used with Saudi students with disabilities. These needs are similar to the findings reported in other studies (i.e. Stump et al., 1992; Schirmer, 1994; DeLuca and Klinger, 2010; Pizzo and Chilvers, 2016; Rahim and Yusof, 2022).
However, many professionals reported that other aspects of support—collaborating with other professionals, involving families, implementing technology, and using a variety of vocabulary assessments—obtained the lowest levels of support from professionals for students with disabilities in the KSA. These results indicate that many essential vocabulary assessment services are less important for professionals using vocabulary assessments and needing other types of support, such as professional development and training. A possible explanation for this finding is that professionals may feel that collaboration, using technology, and a variety of vocabulary assessments are less critical because there may be a lack of professionals’ knowledge of the importance of collaboration and using technologies due to their limited professional development. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies (i.e. Eleweke and Rodda, 2000; Morton, 2001; Zaidman-Zait, 2008; DeLuca and Klinger, 2010; Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Jamieson et al., 2011). Consequently, professionals’ development services should currently be given priority by the government and private sectors to better serve students with disabilities.
The findings of this study showed a statistically significant difference between the training of the professionals on the professionals’ needs and perceptions of vocabulary assessments supporting use with students who are disabled. This result indicates that all professionals, including those who received more than one training session in vocabulary assessment, have similar professional needs in implementing vocabulary assessments. This result highlighted the importance of providing more effective professional development programs in assessments, particularly vocabulary assessments, for all professionals working with students with a disability. Similarity, the findings of this study showed a statistically significant difference between the majors of the professionals on the professionals’ needs and perceptions of vocabulary assessments supporting use with students with a disability. This might mean that professionals who work with DHH need more support in using vocabulary assessments compared with other professionals who majored in SCDs and general SPED because language and communication are the main needs for DHH (Traxler, 2000; Wilbur, 2008). Also, this finding indicates that professionals who work with DHH, such as teachers, might not be well-prepared for assessments compared with speech pathologists; hence, they need more support than other professionals in the workplace.
However, the findings of this study demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the regions of the professionals on the professionals’ needs and perceptions of vocabulary assessments supporting use with students who are disabled. This might mean that professionals who work with individuals with disabilities in the southern region have a greater need for support and professional development in using vocabulary assessments than professionals in other regions. In fact, this result was expected because most participants were from the central, western, and eastern regions with big cities (i.e. Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam) and where the most services and centers for individuals with disabilities are located.
It is interesting to note that professionals’ development and support might be available only to those who work for individuals with disabilities in large regions or cities. Consequently, all professionals for individuals with disabilities in Saudi Arabia need to provide equal support and adequate professional development programs in all aspects of support, especially effectively training professionals in vocabulary assessments with individuals with disabilities, being cooperative with families, making precise decisions regarding individuals’ ability in vocabulary, and more.
Limitations
The first limitation of this study relates to the design of the survey. The nature of the survey design did not allow participants to add suggestions for improving each vocabulary assessment service or for introducing additional needed services that were not listed on the survey because the survey did not provide an exhaustive list covering all potential aspects of professionals’ needs and support. In addition, the survey focused only on the professionals’ perceptions, while other members’ perceptions were not solicited such as administrators, educators, and parents of students with a disability. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that other school and center members would share the same perceptions as the professionals in this study.
Future research
The findings of this study provide valuable information about the needs and perceptions of professionals of students with a disability in regard to the vocabulary assessment support and services provided in the KSA. However, further research is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of professionals’ needs and perceptions about what vocabulary assessment services they would like for themselves and their students with a disability in the KSA. Professionals of students with a disability in the KSA who participated in this study reported that they did not receive some important services of vocabulary assessments. Consequently, a qualitative study may be needed to investigate in greater detail the professionals’ perceptions of, and degree of needs with, current services.
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the needs and perceptions of professionals of students with a disability regarding the vocabulary assessment services and supports provided in the KSA. The findings indicate that many important vocabulary assessment services are being received by some professionals of students with a disability. However, the findings also indicate that these important vocabulary assessment services are not provided for professionals of students with a disability in the KSA. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that professionals had a ‘‘high’’ level of needed for professional development in vocabulary assessments. Finally, professionals reported that all aspects of vocabulary assessments support services—workshops and regular training programs; best practices in assessing students’ vocabulary; materials for practical, evidence-based assessment of vocabulary; providing professionals with sufficient time to conduct and analyze vocabulary assessments; standardization of vocabulary assessments in the Arabic language; and establishing agency for developing and monitoring the standardization of vocabulary assessments in the surveys—are important and needed for them.
Overall, this study offers crucial information to the field of SPED in the KSA about how professionals regard the vocabulary assessment services and supports provided in the KSA. The findings of this study might be used to guide administrators and instructors to better serve the professionals of students with a disability in vocabulary assessments. Hopefully, it will result in increased awareness of the needs of professionals of students with a disability and provide new resources and professional development for them in the KSA with the long-term goal of improving assessments’ outcomes for individuals with a disability. Finally, the need for further research in the KSA is noted in order to get a deeper compression of professionals’ needs in vocabulary assessments.