Ethics Rounds Needs to Consider Evidence for Listening and Spoken Language for Deaf Children

Sugar, Meredith K.; Goldberg, Donald M.

doi:10.1542/peds.2015-3106a

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…reported that more than 90% of families at the Ontario Infant Hearing Program in Canada chose an LSL communication option. Similar findings are reported by Sugar and Goldberg (2015), where more than 88% of families chose an LSL outcome for their children in Ohio, United States (US). This evidence is important as it affirms that when hearing-impaired children receive appropriate EI services delivered by well-trained and experienced professionals utilising their chosen communication approach, they exhibit typical developmental milestones in speech, language and scholastic outcomes (Houston & Stredler-Brown 2012).…”

Section: Communication Therapeutic Approachessupporting

confidence: 82%

Social determinants of health in non-communicable diseases prevention policies in South Africa

Rasesemola¹,

Mmusi-Phetoe²,

Havenga³

2023

Curationis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review declarationThe publisher (AOSIS) endorses the South African 'National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum Best Practice for Peer Review of Scholarly Books'. The manuscript underwent an evaluation to compare the level of originality with other published works and was subjected to rigorous two-step peer review before publication, with the identities of the reviewers not revealed to the editor(s) or author(s). The reviewers were independent of the publisher, editor(s), and author(s). The publisher shared feedback on the similarity report and the reviewers' inputs with the manuscript's editor(s) or author(s) to improve the manuscript. Where the reviewers recommended revision and improvements, the editor(s) or author(s) responded adequately to such recommendations. The reviewers commented positively on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and recommended that the book be published.

show abstract

Section: Communication Therapeutic Approachessupporting

confidence: 82%

Social determinants of health in non-communicable diseases prevention policies in South Africa

Rasesemola¹,

Mmusi-Phetoe²,

Havenga³

2023

Curationis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, just as the term language is often taken to refer to spoken language alone, some have mistakenly believed the critical period applies only to spoken languages. The baseless idea that there is a longer critical period for sign language acquisition has been used to argue that spoken language exposure must be prioritized at the expense of sign language exposure (Sugar & Goldberg, 2015). In contrast, research with the sign-language-as-a-fallback option reveals that deaf adults who did not have access to or achieved age-appropriate mastery of a sign language in childhood do not ever achieve such fluency in their lifetime (Cheng, Halgren, & Mayberry, 2018; Emmorey, 2018; Mayberry, 2010; Mayberry, Chen, Witcher, & Klein, 2011; Mayberry, Davenport, Roth, & Halgren, 2018; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991; Mayberry & Lock, 2003; Newport, 1990; Skotara, Salden, Kügow, Hänel-Faulhaber, & Röder, 2012; Woll, 2018).…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Arguments Against Natural Sign Lanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

show abstract

“…Some hearing loss professionals and organizations advocate for preventing sign language exposure through the Listening and Spoken Language approach, what is historically known as oralism (Sugar, 2016; Sugar & Goldberg, 2015). This opposition to sign language is not based on empirical evidence supporting the harm of sign language exposure, thus perpetuating misinformation such as the sign language acquisition window being longer than the spoken language window.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Hall

2017

Matern Child Health J

187

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing belief is that sign language interferes with spoken language development in deaf children. Brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants, which leads to professionals and organizations advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implantation and spreading misinformation. The existence of one – time-sensitive – language acquisition window means a strong possibility of permanent brain changes when spoken language is not fully accessible to the deaf child and sign language exposure is delayed, as is often standard practice. There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications. This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy. Claims of cochlear implant- and spoken language-only approaches being more effective than sign language-inclusive approaches are not empirically supported. Cochlear implants are an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children. Priorities of deaf child development should focus on healthy growth of all developmental domains through a fully-accessible first language foundation such as sign language, rather than auditory deprivation and speech skills.

show abstract

Ethics Rounds Needs to Consider Evidence for Listening and Spoken Language for Deaf Children

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Social determinants of health in non-communicable diseases prevention policies in South Africa

Social determinants of health in non-communicable diseases prevention policies in South Africa

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About