CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Hearing Impairment and CommunicationReading and Literacy DevelopmentHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Children's Reading Comprehension Profiles

Open access
Kyle, Fiona E., Cain, Kate·2015·Topics in Language Disorders
DOI 10.1097/tld.0000000000000053
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: Although deaf children typically exhibit severe delays in reading achievement, there is a paucity of research looking at their text-level comprehension skills. We present a comparison of deaf and normally hearing readers' profiles on a commonly used reading comprehension assessment: the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability II. Methods: Comprehension questions were coded into 3 types: literal questions; local cohesion questions; and global coherence questions. Deaf children were matched to 3 groups of hearing children: chronological age-matched controls; reading-age-matched controls; and a group of poor comprehenders. Results: Deaf children had significantly weaker reading comprehension skills than both chronological age- and reading-age-matched controls, but their skills were commensurate with poor comprehenders. All groups found it easier to make inferences to establish local cohesion than those required to establish global coherence. Discussion/Conclusions: These results suggest that deaf children's reading comprehension profiles are remarkably similar to those of poor comprehenders. These findings are discussed in light of the potential differences in underlying causes of reading difficulties in these 2 groups.

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 · 10.1097/tld.0000000000000053

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • The ability to make inferences relies on a firm language foundation, which signing can provide because it is totally accessible.

    “One of the most important of those is the ability to make inferences, a skill that relies on a firm language foundation, where signing, being totally accessible, can provide that [44].”

    From Support for parents of deaf children: Common questions and informed, evidence-based answers (2019) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Discussion links vocabulary and general knowledge to some types of inference, but says poor language skills are only a possible source of deaf children’s inference difficulties; the study could not test that relationship. The Procedure mentions British Sign Language as a preferred communication method for some participants, but the paper does not say signing is totally accessible or establishes that it provides the language foundation needed for inference. (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: 3

  1. 1996, Story knowledge and comprehension skill. In Cornoldi C., Oakhill J. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 167-192)., Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
  2. Cain, 1999, Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing., An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489
  3. Campbell, 1990, Deafness and immediate memory for pictures: Dissociations between inner speech and the inner ear Journal of Experimental Child P, sychology, 50, 259

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kyle, F. E., & Cain, K.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Topics in Language Disorders
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2015-04
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
144-156
ISSN
0271-8294 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/tld.0000000000000053
OpenAlex
W1964441093
Cited by
83
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
16.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Topics in Language Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
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, reading comprehension, literal comprehension, local cohesion, global coherence, inferential reasoning, poor comprehenders

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