ArticleJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2023
Writing Development in DHH Students: A Bimodal Bilingual Approach.
Article in Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of hearing history, etiology, vestibular and balance function, and socioeconomic marginalization on developmental outcomes in children with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Replication of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction in a Nationwide Randomized Controlled Trial.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Written products and writing processes in Swedish deaf and hard of hearing children: an explorative study on the impact of linguistic background.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article describes the lexical and syntactic development of written narratives in 24 deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students aged between 8 and 18 and takes into account how their varying linguistic backgrounds may predict their written performance. All participants use spoken Swedish, but the study also considers their proficiency in Swedish Sign language, which ranged from zero to fluent. Their narrative texts were analyzed in regard to syntax and lexicon, which demonstrated a strong developmental trend in which increased age predicted more complex texts. Age of acquisition did not predict any writing outcome, which is suggested to occur because all participants were exposed to language early, that is, within the critical time window for language acquisition. Sign language proficiency showed a tendency to predict adjective density and number of clauses, which encourages future research in this area, especially since this connection argues for the benefits of early access to a language and the positive relationship between sign language proficiency and writing.
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.