Differences in the type of vocabulary understood by deaf and hearing students: Results to guide interventions

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Communication Disorders Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106458
{"title":"Differences in the type of vocabulary understood by deaf and hearing students: Results to guide interventions","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Vocabulary knowledge is an essential element in language development. There is evidence of significant differences in vocabulary knowledge between deaf children and hearing peers of the same age. These differences put deaf students at a disadvantage when compared to their hearing counterparts. The aim of this study was to investigate whether certain types of words characterise the lexical difficulties of deaf students. Our starting point is that this knowledge is needed to design interventions that are adapted to the particular needs of these students for their lexical development.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We evaluated the lexical comprehension of 90 Spanish students. The sample comprised 45 hearing students and 45 students with severe or profound hearing loss. Both groups were attending the later years of primary school (8 to –12-year-olds). They were tested using the Spanish Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. The performance of both groups was statistically compared using percentiles and standard scores as well as a selected set of words from the test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No significant differences between hearing and deaf groups were found by age, sex, and sociocultural level. Significant differences were found between groups in their percentile and standard scores. There were no significant differences in performance between the two groups on only five of the 25 words with the highest error rate in the deaf group. The qualitative analysis of the remaining 20 words that were especially challenging for deaf students reveals results of interest which could help guide interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The results indicate the need for lexical intervention for deaf students in the final years of primary school. The specialised support service for deaf learners should approach the intervention by targeting a specific type of vocabulary, making the semantic relationships between these words more transparent and promoting a deeper understanding of them.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49175,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992424000546","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Vocabulary knowledge is an essential element in language development. There is evidence of significant differences in vocabulary knowledge between deaf children and hearing peers of the same age. These differences put deaf students at a disadvantage when compared to their hearing counterparts. The aim of this study was to investigate whether certain types of words characterise the lexical difficulties of deaf students. Our starting point is that this knowledge is needed to design interventions that are adapted to the particular needs of these students for their lexical development.

Methods

We evaluated the lexical comprehension of 90 Spanish students. The sample comprised 45 hearing students and 45 students with severe or profound hearing loss. Both groups were attending the later years of primary school (8 to –12-year-olds). They were tested using the Spanish Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. The performance of both groups was statistically compared using percentiles and standard scores as well as a selected set of words from the test.

Results

No significant differences between hearing and deaf groups were found by age, sex, and sociocultural level. Significant differences were found between groups in their percentile and standard scores. There were no significant differences in performance between the two groups on only five of the 25 words with the highest error rate in the deaf group. The qualitative analysis of the remaining 20 words that were especially challenging for deaf students reveals results of interest which could help guide interventions.

Conclusions

The results indicate the need for lexical intervention for deaf students in the final years of primary school. The specialised support service for deaf learners should approach the intervention by targeting a specific type of vocabulary, making the semantic relationships between these words more transparent and promoting a deeper understanding of them.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
聋哑学生和健听学生理解词汇类型的差异:指导干预措施的结果
导言词汇知识是语言发展的基本要素。有证据表明,聋哑儿童与同龄的健听儿童在词汇知识方面存在显著差异。这些差异使得聋哑学生与听力正常的学生相比处于劣势。本研究的目的是调查某些类型的词汇是否是聋哑学生词汇困难的特征。我们的出发点是,需要这方面的知识来设计干预措施,以适应这些学生词汇发展的特殊需要。样本包括 45 名听力学生和 45 名重度或极重度听力损失学生。两组学生都是小学低年级学生(8 至 12 岁)。他们接受了西班牙语皮博迪图画词汇测试-III。结果 听力组和聋人组在年龄、性别和社会文化水平方面没有发现显著差异。各组之间在百分位数和标准分数上存在显著差异。在聋人组错误率最高的 25 个单词中,只有 5 个单词的成绩在两组之间没有明显差异。对其余 20 个对聋哑学生特别具有挑战性的单词进行的定性分析揭示了一些值得关注的结果,这些结果有助于指导干预措施。为聋哑学生提供的专门支持服务应针对特定类型的词汇进行干预,使这些词汇之间的语义关系更加透明,并促进对这些词汇的深入理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Communication Disorders
Journal of Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
71
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Communication Disorders publishes original articles on topics related to disorders of speech, language and hearing. Authors are encouraged to submit reports of experimental or descriptive investigations (research articles), review articles, tutorials or discussion papers, or letters to the editor ("short communications"). Please note that we do not accept case studies unless they conform to the principles of single-subject experimental design. Special issues are published periodically on timely and clinically relevant topics.
期刊最新文献
Benefits of speech recognition in noise using remote microphones for people with typical hearing. Variability of theory of mind versus pragmatic ability in typical and atypical development Self-inefficacy's impact on well-being indices in students self-identifying with cluttering characteristics Lived experiences of children who stutter in their own voices Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1