Comparison of intelligence quotients of first- and second-generation deaf children with cochlear implants

Amraei, Kourosh; Amirsalari, Susan; Ajalloueyan, Mohammad

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.10.005

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not collect nonverbal intelligence for these children. There is a long history of reports that native signers tend to outperform other deaf children on intelligence tests: even those that are intended to be nonverbal tasks (e.g., Amraei, Amirsalari, & Ajalloueyan, 2017;Braden, 1987;Kusché, Greenberg, & Garfield, 1983;Meadow, 1968;Sisco & Anderson, 1980). Given this prior evidence, matching the two groups on nonverbal IQ scores would require samples that are not necessarily representative of the populations to which we aim to generalize.…”

Section: Corsi Blocks Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Hall

Eigsti

Bortfeld

et al. 2018

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These results indicate that healthy EF skills do not require audition and therefore that difficulties in this domain do not result primarily from a lack of auditory experience. Instead, results are consistent with the hypothesis that language proficiency, whether in sign or speech, is crucial for the development of healthy EF. Further research is needed to test whether sign language proficiency also confers benefits to deaf children from hearing families.

show abstract

Section: Corsi Blocks Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Hall

Eigsti

Bortfeld

et al. 2018

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This pattern occurs because many advocates, professionals, and educators believe that sign language acquisition will interfere with deaf children’s development of speech skills [25,26], despite research that has shown that signing implanted children actually demonstrate better speech development, language development, and intelligence scores than non-signing implanted children [20,27,28]. This resistance has been recently described as a prejudice against both sign languages and the state of being deaf [29].…”

Section: Language Deprivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language deprivation syndrome: a possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins

Hall

Levin

Anderson

2017

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is a need to better understand the epidemiological relationship between language development and psychiatric symptomatology. Language development can be particularly impacted by social factors, as seen in the developmental choices made for deaf children which can create language deprivation. A possible mental health syndrome may be present in deaf patients with severe language deprivation. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify publications focusing on language development and mental health in the deaf population. Screening of relevant publications narrowed the search results to 35 publications. Results Although there is very limited empirical evidence, there appears to be suggestions of a mental health syndrome by clinicians working with deaf patients. Possible features include language dysfluency, fund of knowledge deficits, and disruptions in thinking, mood, and/or behavior. Conclusion The clinical specialty of deaf mental health appears to be struggling with a clinically observed phenomenon that has yet to be empirically investigated and defined within the DSM-5. Descriptions of patients within the clinical setting suggest a language deprivation syndrome. Language development experiences have an epidemiological relationship with psychiatric outcomes in deaf people. This requires more empirical attention and has implications for other populations with behavioral health disparities as well.

show abstract

“…Previous research suggests that DHH children who are born into deaf families or, in exceptional cases, into families who started learning sign language early, may face a considerable advantage in their language development (see e.g., Svartholm, 2010 for an overview). Other studies have also shown that children with cochlear implant (henceforth, CI) with sign language knowledge outperform their DHH-peers born into hearing families without sign language knowledge in almost all intelligence tests (Amraei et al, 2017), in their speech and auditory development (Hassanzadeh, 2012), and showed comparable English scores with their hearing peers with sign language knowledge (Davidson et al, 2014), due to early first language acquisition. By contrast, some researchers have analyzed written outcomes for the deaf using the theoretical framework of Second Language Acquisition, arriving at the conclusion that deaf children exhibit grammatical structures similar to those of hearing second language learners in written Swedish (e.g., Svartholm, 2008; Schönström, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Spelling in Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Hearing Children With Sign Language Knowledge

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What do spelling errors look like in children with sign language knowledge but with variation in hearing background, and what strategies do these children rely on when they learn how to spell in written language? Earlier research suggests that the spelling of children with hearing loss is different, because of their lack of hearing, which requires them to rely on other strategies. In this study, we examine whether, and how, different variables such as hearing degree, sign language knowledge and bilingualism may affect the spelling strategies of children with Swedish sign language, Svenskt teckenspråk, (STS) knowledge, and whether these variables can be mirrored in these children’s spelling. The spelling process of nineteen children with STS knowledge (mean age: 10.9) with different hearing degrees, born into deaf families, is described and compared with a group of fourteen hearing children without STS knowledge (mean age: 10.9). Keystroke logging was used to investigate the participants’ writing process. The spelling behavior of the children was further analyzed and categorized into different spelling error categories. The results indicate that many children showed exceptionally few spelling errors compared to earlier studies, that may derive from their early exposure of STS, enabling them to use the fingerspelling strategy. All of the children also demonstrated similar typing skills. The deaf children showed a tendency to rely on a visual strategy during spelling, which may result in incorrect, but visually similar, words, i.e., a type of spelling errors not found in texts by hearing children with STS knowledge. The deaf children also showed direct transfer from STS in their spelling. It was found that hard-of-hearing children together with hearing children of deaf adults (CODAs), both with STS knowledge, used a sounding strategy, rather than a visual strategy. Overall, this study suggests that the ability to hear and to use sign language, together and respectively, play a significant role for the spelling patterns and spelling strategies used by the children with and without hearing loss.

show abstract

Comparison of intelligence quotients of first- and second-generation deaf children with cochlear implants

Cited by 27 publications

References 35 publications

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Language deprivation syndrome: a possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins

Spelling in Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Hearing Children With Sign Language Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About