CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Hearing Impairment and CommunicationReading and Literacy DevelopmentHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relative contributions of speechreading and vocabulary to deaf and hearing children's reading ability

Open access
Kyle, Fiona Elizabeth, Campbell, Ruth, MacSweeney, Mairéad·2016·Research in Developmental Disabilities
DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.004PMC PMC4916263
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vocabulary knowledge and speechreading are important for deaf children's reading development but it is unknown whether they are independent predictors of reading ability. AIMS: This study investigated the relationships between reading, speechreading and vocabulary in a large cohort of deaf and hearing children aged 5 to 14 years. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 86 severely and profoundly deaf children and 91 hearing children participated in this study. All children completed assessments of reading comprehension, word reading accuracy, speechreading and vocabulary. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Regression analyses showed that vocabulary and speechreading accounted for unique variance in both reading accuracy and comprehension for deaf children. For hearing children, vocabulary was an independent predictor of both reading accuracy and comprehension skills but speechreading only accounted for unique variance in reading accuracy. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Speechreading and vocabulary are important for reading development in deaf children. The results are interpreted within the Simple View of Reading framework and the theoretical implications for deaf children's reading are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.004

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even those deaf children who do very well with cochlear implants depend on speechreading to a great extent.

    “Even those deaf children who do very well with CI depend on speechreading to a great extent [53].”

    From Support for parents of deaf children: Common questions and informed, evidence-based answers (2019) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Discussion’s conclusions say speechreading is important for reading development in deaf children, possibly including those with cochlear implants (page unavailable). That supports a possible role for speechreading, but the paper does not establish that children who do very well with implants depend on it to a great extent. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Craig, 1964, Effects of preschool training on the development of reading and lipreading skills of deaf children, American Annals of the Deaf, 109, 280

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kyle, F. E., Campbell, R., & MacSweeney, M.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Kyle, Fiona Elizabeth
ORCID
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
48
Pages
13-24
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.004
PMC
PMC4916263
OpenAlex
W1887051195
Cited by
74
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
17.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre (RES 620-28-0002)
  • Wellcome Trust (GR075214MA)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
deaf children, lip reading, vocabulary, reading development, reading comprehension, word reading accuracy, Simple View of Reading, hearing children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Deafness, Female, Hearing Aids, Hearing Tests, Humans, Language Tests, Lipreading, Male, Phonetics, Reading, Correction of Hearing Impairment, Task Performance and Analysis, Vocabulary, Persons with Hearing Disabilities, Education of Persons with Hearing Disabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review