ArticleJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2019
Comparing Word Characteristic Effects on Vocabulary of Children with Cochlear Implants.
Article in Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concept vocabulary in children who are deaf or hard of hearing.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2025Article
- Influence of Child-Level Factors and Lexical Characteristics on Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants and Hearing Aids.Developmental science · 2025Article
- Comparing Scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test in Preschoolers With and Without Hearing Loss.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Impact of Meeting Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Benchmarks on Spoken Language.Journal of early intervention · 2022Article
- Differences in picture naming between children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing.Heliyon · 2021Article
- The Relation Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Phonological Awareness in Children With Cochlear Implants.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Many studies have evaluated overall vocabulary knowledge of children who use cochlear implants, but there has been minimal focus on how word form characteristics affect this knowledge. This study evaluates the effects of neighborhood density and phonotactic probability on the expressive vocabulary of 81 children between five and seven years old (n = 27 cochlear implant users, n = 27 children matched for chronological age, and n = 27 children matched for vocabulary size). Children were asked to name pictures associated with words that have common and rare phonotactic probability and high and sparse neighborhood density. Results indicate that children with cochlear implants, similar to both groups of children with typical hearing, tend to know words with common probability/high density or with rare probability/ sparse density. Patterns of word knowledge for children with cochlear implants mirrored younger children matched for vocabulary size rather than age-matched children with typical hearing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.