SLPCohortJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2023

Writing Development in DHH Students: A Bimodal Bilingual Approach.

Moa Gärdenfors

PMID 36964761

WHAT IT FOUND

DHH children's writing developed along the same path as hearing peers, but with a one-year delay in complexity.

Sign language proficiency showed a non-significant trend toward richer descriptions, while early language access had no measurable effect.

Key findings

01Writing complexity increased with age, but the developmental leap in syntax and vocabulary occurred around age 14, roughly one year later than in typically hearing peers.

02Sign language proficiency did not significantly predict writing outcomes, though there was a non-significant tendency for more skilled signers to produce more clauses and adjectives.

03Age of acquisition did not predict any writing outcomes, likely because all participants acquired their first language early (between 0 and 3 years).

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Small sample size (24 participants) limits the power of regression analyses and increases the risk of type 2 errors. Spoken language proficiency was not tested, so its influence on writing could not be isolated. Age of acquisition was based on parent reports, which may not account for early pre-linguistic communication (e.g., gestures, home signs), potentially underestimating early language exposure. No typically hearing control group was included, so direct comparisons of writing quality or complexity are not possible. The study did not explicitly analyze subject/object omissions, which are common in DHH writing and may affect syntactic measures.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest were reported.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the non-significant trend for sign language proficiency as evidence that sign language improves writing. The study was underpowered, and sign language proficiency did not significantly predict any writing outcome.

Read it on PubMed →