Counseling with Deaf Clients: The need for Culturally and Linguistically Sensitive Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many counselors and therapists who work with culturally Deaf clients have had the unfortunate experience of trying to use what they consider to be an appropriate intervention, only to see it elicit a response of silence and puzzlement from the client. At other times the clinician may become creative and use an intervention that seems to propel the session forward. Why is it that certain types of interventions tend to work better with Deaf clients? Why is it that some interventions seem inappropriate? Are there certain types of interventions that are best suited for use within a visual/gestural mode of communication? The two premises being put forth in this paper are: some interventions are, in fact, better suited for work with Deaf individuals; and, the natural language of Deaf people, namely American Sign Language (ASL)as well as factors pertaining to Deaf culture, should be considered essential criteria for determining which interventions are appropriate. This paper is not meant as a "how to" document but, rather, as an invitation to counselors who work with Deaf clients to examine the extent to which their interventions complement the linguistic and cultural needs of their clients. Three examples of culturally and linguistically sensitive interventions will be examined in this paper and then applied to a case example.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".