A Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Children's Reading Comprehension Profiles

Kyle, Fiona; Cain, Kate

doi:10.1097/tld.0000000000000053

Cited by 58 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the majority of HHOD children had vocabulary scores as expected, either in or above the average range, it was apparent that a minority of HHOD poor readers had weak language skills, together with phonological deficits, a profile that typified the OD poor readers. These children may be considered at risk for poor reading comprehension in the future (Bishop & Snowling, ; Kyle & Cain, ). In the group of poor OD readers, no children mirrored the classic dyslexic profile of weak phonological skills alongside good language skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia

Herman

Kyle

Roy

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral deaf children and hearing children with dyslexia both experience literacy challenges, although their reasons differ. The authors explored the problems underlying poor literacy in each group and drew implications for reading interventions. Data were collected using standardized literacy and phonological measures from 69 severe‐to‐profoundly prelingually deaf children ages 10 and 11 years, all communicating with spoken language, and compared with equivalent data from 20 hearing children with a history of dyslexia matched on reading ability. Children were given a large battery of tasks assessing word and nonword reading, spelling, vocabulary, and reading‐related skills, including letter sound knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automated naming, and verbal short‐term memory. Striking similarities were observed for word reading, nonword reading, and spelling across groups, and associations between the measures and reading‐related skills were similar. However, differences between the two groups emerged in the strength of association between literacy and vocabulary. Regression analyses confirmed vocabulary as a key predictor of literacy in the oral deaf group. These results suggest that not only children with a history of dyslexia but also oral deaf children who struggle with reading should receive specialist literacy support. Reading interventions for oral deaf children should target phonological and language skills within a fully integrated approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia

Herman

Kyle

Roy

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Kim (2015) and Ricketts et al (2013) noted that both ToM and reading comprehension involve inference making, and suggested that this ability may link ToM to reading comprehension. Furthermore, Kyle and Cain (2015) showed that both deaf and hearing children who were poor reading comprehenders had poorer inference making skills than hearing controls with good reading comprehension. Since DHH signing children learn to read in a second language, their lack of relevant language-specific background knowledge may make it especially difficult to make appropriate inferences during reading ( Hoffmeister and Caldwell-Harris, 2014 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory of Mind and Reading Comprehension in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Signing Children

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory of Mind (ToM) is related to reading comprehension in hearing children. In the present study, we investigated progression in ToM in Swedish deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) signing children who were learning to read, as well as the association of ToM with reading comprehension. Thirteen children at Swedish state primary schools for DHH children performed a Swedish Sign Language (SSL) version of the Wellman and Liu (2004) ToM scale, along with tests of reading comprehension, SSL comprehension, and working memory. Results indicated that ToM progression did not differ from that reported in previous studies, although ToM development was delayed despite age-appropriate sign language skills. Correlation analysis revealed that ToM was associated with reading comprehension and working memory, but not sign language comprehension. We propose that some factor not investigated in the present study, possibly represented by inference making constrained by working memory capacity, supports both ToM and reading comprehension and may thus explain the results observed in the present study.

show abstract

“…Geers, Nicholas & Sedey, (2003) found that the DHH children between ages 7-11 and 9-11 years scored between 2 and 3 standard deviations (SD) below the norms on tests of receptive English syntax. Geers et al (2009) reported that only 33 Geers et al (2003) reported that children who primarily used spoken communication scored higher on expressive English syntax than children who used sign. In brief, our knowledge of ASL syntax acquisition in elementary-aged children is limited.…”

Section: Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language and Reading Progress of Young Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

Antia

Lederberg

Easterbrooks

et al. 2020

The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the language and reading progress of 336 young DHH children in kindergarten, first and second grades. Trained assessors tested children’s language, reading, and spoken and fingerspelled phonological awareness in the fall and spring of the school year. Children were divided into groups based on their auditory access and classroom communication: a spoken-only group (n = 101), a sign-only group (n = 131), and a bimodal group (n = 104). Overall, children showed delays in language and reading compared to norms established for hearing children. For language, vocabulary standard scores were higher than for English syntax. Although delayed in language, children made expected gains based on hearing norms from kindergarten to second grade. Reading scores declined from kindergarten to second grade. Spoken-only and bimodal children had similar word reading and reading comprehension abilities and higher scores than sign-only children. Spoken-only children had better spoken phonological awareness and nonword reading skills than the other two groups. The sign-only and bimodal groups made similar and significant gains in ASL syntax and fingerspelling phonological awareness.

show abstract

A Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Children's Reading Comprehension Profiles

Cited by 58 publications

References 36 publications

Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia

Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia

Theory of Mind and Reading Comprehension in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Signing Children

Language and Reading Progress of Young Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About