A dialogic analysis of interaction between mothers and their deaf or hearing preschoolers

Nienhuys, Terry G.; Horsborough, K.M.; Cross, Toni G.

doi:10.1017/s014271640000607x

Cited by 26 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the 18-month visit, caregivers of CHH used a greater proportion of directing utterances than caregivers of CNH and at the 3-year visit the CHH were exposed to poorer quality input than the CNH. This fits with findings from previous work indicating that hearing parents use lower quality speech when communicating with their deaf children than do hearing parents of hearing children (Cross et al 1980; Nienhuys et al 1985). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In part, this is because most research on caregiver input to children with HL has focused on dyads in which the child is deaf, as opposed to hard of hearing. Findings generally indicate that hearing parents are more directive, use less complex language structures, and less high-quality talk, including mental state talk, in interactions with their deaf children than parents who share the same hearing status as their child (Cross et al 1980; Nienhuys et al 1984; Nienhuys et al 1985, Spencer et al 1992; Moeller & Schick 2006; Morgan et al 2014). There is some evidence, however, that differences are less apparent or non-existent when the control group is language-matched to the child with HL, as opposed to age-matched, thus indicating that children’s language abilities influence quality of caregiver input (Gallaway & Woll, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantity and Quality of Caregivers’ Linguistic Input to 18-Month and 3-Year-Old Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

Ambrose¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The primary objective of this study was to examine the quantity and quality of caregiver talk directed to children who are hard of hearing (CHH) as compared to children with normal hearing (CNH). For the CHH only, the study explored how caregiver input changed as a function of child age (18 months versus 3 years), which child and family factors contributed to variance in caregiver linguistic input at 18 months and 3 years, and how caregiver talk at 18 months related to child language outcomes at 3 years. Design Participants were 59 CNH and 156 children with bilateral, mild-to-severe hearing loss. When children were approximately 18-months and/or 3-years of age, caregivers and children participated in a 5-minute semi-structured, conversational interaction. Interactions were transcribed and coded for two features of caregiver input representing quantity (number of total utterances and number of total words) and four features representing quality (number of different words, mean length of utterance in morphemes, proportion of utterances that were high-level, and proportion of utterances that were directing). Additionally, at the 18-month visit, parents completed a standardized questionnaire regarding their child’s communication development. At the 3-year visit, a clinician administered a standardized language measure. Results At the 18-month visit, the CHH were exposed to a greater proportion of directing utterances than the CNH. At the 3-year visit, there were significant differences between the CNH and CHH for number of total words and all four of the quality variables, with the CHH being exposed to fewer words and lower quality input. Caregivers generally provided higher quality input to CHH at the 3-year visit, as compared to the 18-month visit. At the 18-month visit, quantity variables, but not quality variables, were related to several child and family factors. At the 3-year visit, the variable most strongly related to caregiver input was child language. Longitudinal analyses indicated that quality, but not quantity, of caregiver linguistic input at 18 months was related to child language abilities at 3 years, with directing utterances accounting for significant unique variance in child language outcomes. Conclusions Although caregivers of CHH increased their use of quality features of linguistic input over time, the differences as compared to CNH suggest that some caregivers may need additional support to provide their children with optimal language learning environments. This is particularly important given the relationships that were identified between quality features of caregivers’ linguistic input and children’s language abilities. Family supports should include a focus on developing a style that is conversational-eliciting as opposed to directive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity and Quality of Caregivers’ Linguistic Input to 18-Month and 3-Year-Old Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

Ambrose¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This more unidirectional pattern holds both for dyads containing children up to 12 months of age (e.g. Meadow-Orlans, 1996;Nienhuys & Pattison, 1986;Nienhuys & Tikotin, 1983;Spencer & Gutfreund, 1990a, b) and dyads with older children (e.g. Gregory, 1976;Henggeler, Watson, & Cooper, 1984;Musselman & Churchill, 1992;Power et al, 1990).…”

Section: Communication Attachment and Controlmentioning

confidence: 96%

Communication between Parents and Deaf Children: Implications for Social‐emotional Development

Vaccari

Marschark

1997

Child Psychology Psychiatry

172

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parent-child communication plays a central role in social growth, as it does in other domains of development. Over 90% of deaf children, however, have hearing parents who frequently do not have a fully effective means of communicating with them. This paper examines the role of effective parent-child communication in the social and emotional development of deaf children. Evidence concerning relations between early communication and social-emotional development of deaf children is reviewed, and superficial differences in the ways that parents interact with deaf versus hearing children are distinguished from differences that may have more significant and enduring effects. Hearing parents and their deaf children are found to develop alternative, often nonverbal, interaction strategies. Of primary interest is the extent to which those strategies have impact comparable to the strategies of hearing parents with hearing children or deaf parents with deaf children.

show abstract

“…Hearing mothers tend to be more rigid, negative, intrusive, and less likely to respond to their deaf and hard-of-hearing children than hearing parents of hearing children (e.g., MacTurk, Meadow-Orlans, Koester, & Spencer, 1993; Meadow-Orlans & Steinberg, 1993). They also use less complex language structures and fewer expansions with their deaf and hard-of-hearing children (Cross, Johnson- Morris, & Nienhuys, 1980; Nienhuys, Horsborough, & Cross, 1985). …”

Section: Contribution Of Family Environment To Pediatric Cochlear Impmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Holt

Beer

Kronenberger

et al. 2012

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the family environments of children with cochlear implants and to examine relationships between family environment and post-implant language development and executive function. Method Forty-five families of children with cochlear implants completed a self-report family environment questionnaire (FES) and an inventory of executive function (BRIEF/BRIEF-P). Children’s receptive vocabulary (PPVT-4) and global language skills (PLS-4/CELF-4) were also evaluated. Results The family environments of children with cochlear implants differed from those of normal-hearing children, but not in clinically significant ways. Language development and executive function were found to be atypical, but not uncharacteristic of this clinical population. Families with higher levels of self-reported control had children with smaller vocabularies. Families reporting a higher emphasis on achievement had children with fewer executive function and working memory problems. Finally, families reporting a higher emphasis on organization had children with fewer problems related to inhibition. Conclusions Some of the variability in cochlear implantation outcomes that have protracted periods of development is related to family environment. Because family environment can be modified and enhanced by therapy or education, these preliminary findings hold promise for future work in helping families to create robust language-learning environments that can maximize their child’s potential with a cochlear implant.

show abstract

A dialogic analysis of interaction between mothers and their deaf or hearing preschoolers

Cited by 26 publications

References 21 publications

Quantity and Quality of Caregivers’ Linguistic Input to 18-Month and 3-Year-Old Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

Quantity and Quality of Caregivers’ Linguistic Input to 18-Month and 3-Year-Old Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

Communication between Parents and Deaf Children: Implications for Social‐emotional Development

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About