ArticleJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2026
Avoiding unintended consequences: science of reading policies may harm deaf children.
Article in Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reading ability in both deaf and hearing adults is linked to neural representations of abstract phonology derived from visual speech.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many U.S. policies inspired by the Science of Reading rest on two assumptions: (1) skilled reading always involves automatic mapping between written words and speech sounds, and (2) all children benefit from systematic instruction of phonological awareness and phonics. These assumptions are not wholly accurate, that they do not consider scientific evidence from deaf readers, and that policies based on these assumptions may be harmful to deaf children. First, skilled reading does not always rely on phonology. Evidence shows that deaf readers can read effectively without using spoken language phonology and that phonological processing can be unrelated to reading skill in this group. Second, a fundamental issue in deaf education is prioritizing speech and hearing over language development, academics, cognition, and socio-emotional well-being. This unhealthy imbalance persists despite the mounting evidence that we cannot ensure deaf children acquire spoken language. Policies mandating speech-based reading instruction for all children overlook how deaf readers develop literacy, and reinforce the overemphasis on speech, which creates the conditions for language deprivation. We caution against a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction and emphasize the need for differentiated instruction that respects the diverse ways beginning readers, including deaf learners, acquire literacy.
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.