Effects of language sampling context on complex syntax production of deaf and hard of hearing children.
Jena McDaniel, Camryn Lowe, Angie Walker and 1 others
Context changes what you see in a language sample.
DHH children produced more conjunction clauses in conversation, more complement clauses in narrative, and more precursors and simple infinitives in play. A low score in one context may reflect the task, not the child.
Key findings
1Complex syntax density at the utterance level was higher in conversation than play (d = 0.64, p = 0.009), but the proportion of utterances containing complex syntax and sample-level density did not differ across contexts.
2Conjunction clauses were most frequent in conversation (d = 1.40 vs play, d = 0.84 vs narrative, both p < 0.001), complement clauses were more frequent in narrative than conversation (d = 0.60, p < 0.001), and precursors and simple infinitive clauses were more frequent in play than conversation (d = 0.78 and d = 0.84, both p < 0.001).
3No context differences were found for relative clauses.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Cross-sectional: all contexts were collected on the same day, so the study shows context effects but says nothing about growth over time. Single state programme, single population of 46 children; the authors note the findings should be replicated with a larger sample and tested in other populations. Seven participants had an additional diagnosis (autism, visual impairment) and 20 used ASL to some degree, so results may not generalise to all DHH children. Relative clauses were produced infrequently and had the lowest coding reliability (ICC = .73), so the null finding for that category is less stable. Socioeconomic information was not collected systematically. The play context was only available for children aged 3-4, so play comparisons are limited to the youngest group.
Declared interests
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read a low complex syntax score from a play sample as evidence of a deficit without also checking the conversation and narrative samples. Play naturally elicits fewer conjunction clauses and more precursors, so a mildly low score in play may be expected rather than indicative of a problem. The same logic applies in reverse: a high complement clause score in a narrative sample may simply reflect that narratives elicit that category more than conversation does.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →