ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Scoping Review of Literacy Interventions Using Signed Languages for School-Age Deaf Students.
Review 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tactile and haptic interaction in STEM learning: a scoping review of embodied and multisensory pathways for conceptual learning processes.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Oral Health in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Individuals: Addressing Widespread Global Health Barriers Through Emerging Digital Technologies-A Comprehensive Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review systematically analyzes the nature and implications of existing research on literacy and literacy interventions that use a signed language among deaf students from preschool through college. We identified the findings associated with the use of sign languages on literacy outcomes for deaf students, and we analyzed the scope of the identified studies to uncover potential gaps in the research base. Fifteen empirical studies published between 2014 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria, featuring participants across a range of educational levels. Methodologies varied, with qualitative and group comparison designs most common. Studies addressed key literacy components (i.e., phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and composition) and findings indicate that integrating sign language into literacy instruction enhances language access and supports literacy learning. The results highlight the importance of responsive, multimodal instruction and point to the need for further research to fill identified gaps.
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.