ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Variability in Language and Literacy Outcomes Among Deaf Elementary Students in a National Sample.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Instructional Practices for Signed Literacy: Observations of 38 Deaf Education Classrooms.Language teaching research · 2026Article
- Avoiding unintended consequences: science of reading policies may harm deaf children.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026Article
- Replication of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction in a Nationwide Randomized Controlled Trial.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
This study examined the literacy outcomes of 368 deaf elementary students in the United States, focusing on reading and writing performance and their connections with demographic and language variables. Standardized assessment data were analyzed from students in grades 3-6. Results indicated wide variability in reading and writing performance, from scores at a standard deviation above the mean to more than 3 below the mean. There were demonstrated disparities in mean literacy outcomes based on disability status. A strong positive correlation was found between reading and writing scores, suggesting interconnected development of literacy skills. Notably, writing outcomes were consistently higher than reading across analyses. Performance trajectories differed by grade, with literacy gaps widening over time. Gender, race, and hearing level explained 2-3% of the variance in literacy outcomes, while language proficiency (in ASL and/or spoken English) and phonological knowledge (fingerspelled and/or spoken) predicated 55-63% of the models. These findings highlight the need for early accessible language exposure and responsive literacy instruction aligned with deaf learners' language strengths.
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.