ArticleLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2025
Is Knowing Words Enough? Assessing Vocabulary in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Article in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVocabulary skills in children are typically measured with norm-referenced assessments of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Language sample analysis is an alternative method of examining vocabulary actually produced in communicative events and may be better suited to exposing subtle vocabulary weaknesses. Here, we examine the relationship between norm-referenced vocabulary testing and language sample analysis in preschool children, both children with typical hearing (CTH) and children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).
methodExpressive and receptive vocabulary and spontaneous language samples were collected. Language samples were analyzed for complexity (mean length of utterance in words [MLUw]) and variability (number of different noun and verb types produced).
resultsCTH had significantly higher scores on both expressive and receptive norm-referenced tests and produced sentences with greater syntactic complexity and semantic variability. Relationships between expressive test scores and MLUw were seen in both groups; the number of noun/verb types produced was related for children who are DHH only. Receptive vocabulary was not related to spontaneous spoken language for CTH. Receptive vocabulary was significantly related to MLUw and noun/verb types for children who are DHH. However, when the DHH group was subdivided into performance above and performance below the 50th percentile, relationships held only for the group with below-average performance.
conclusionsResults suggest that single-word vocabulary, norm-referenced measures indicating performance above the 50th percentile may not be sufficient to capture nuanced difficulties with vocabulary in children who are DHH. For children who are DHH, performance in the "range of normal" on a norm-referenced test may not capture ways in which their language performance differs from that of peers 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.