{"title":"Is Knowing Words Enough? Assessing Vocabulary in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.","authors":"Leo Evans, Emily A Lund, Krystal L Werfel","doi":"10.1044/2024_LSHSS-24-00046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Vocabulary skills in children are typically measured with norm-referenced assessments of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Language sample analysis is an alternative method of examining vocabulary actually produced in communicative events and may be better suited to exposing subtle vocabulary weaknesses. Here, we examine the relationship between norm-referenced vocabulary testing and language sample analysis in preschool children, both children with typical hearing (CTH) and children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Expressive and receptive vocabulary and spontaneous language samples were collected. Language samples were analyzed for complexity (mean length of utterance in words [MLUw]) and variability (number of different noun and verb types produced).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CTH had significantly higher scores on both expressive and receptive norm-referenced tests and produced sentences with greater syntactic complexity and semantic variability. Relationships between expressive test scores and MLUw were seen in both groups; the number of noun/verb types produced was related for children who are DHH only. Receptive vocabulary was not related to spontaneous spoken language for CTH. Receptive vocabulary was significantly related to MLUw and noun/verb types for children who are DHH. However, when the DHH group was subdivided into performance above and performance below the 50th percentile, relationships held only for the group with below-average performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results suggest that single-word vocabulary, norm-referenced measures indicating performance above the 50th percentile may not be sufficient to capture nuanced difficulties with vocabulary in children who are DHH. For children who are DHH, performance in the \"range of normal\" on a norm-referenced test may not capture ways in which their language performance differs from that of peers with typical hearing.</p>","PeriodicalId":54326,"journal":{"name":"Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-24-00046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Vocabulary skills in children are typically measured with norm-referenced assessments of receptive and expressive vocabulary. Language sample analysis is an alternative method of examining vocabulary actually produced in communicative events and may be better suited to exposing subtle vocabulary weaknesses. Here, we examine the relationship between norm-referenced vocabulary testing and language sample analysis in preschool children, both children with typical hearing (CTH) and children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).
Method: Expressive and receptive vocabulary and spontaneous language samples were collected. Language samples were analyzed for complexity (mean length of utterance in words [MLUw]) and variability (number of different noun and verb types produced).
Results: CTH had significantly higher scores on both expressive and receptive norm-referenced tests and produced sentences with greater syntactic complexity and semantic variability. Relationships between expressive test scores and MLUw were seen in both groups; the number of noun/verb types produced was related for children who are DHH only. Receptive vocabulary was not related to spontaneous spoken language for CTH. Receptive vocabulary was significantly related to MLUw and noun/verb types for children who are DHH. However, when the DHH group was subdivided into performance above and performance below the 50th percentile, relationships held only for the group with below-average performance.
Conclusions: Results suggest that single-word vocabulary, norm-referenced measures indicating performance above the 50th percentile may not be sufficient to capture nuanced difficulties with vocabulary in children who are DHH. For children who are DHH, performance in the "range of normal" on a norm-referenced test may not capture ways in which their language performance differs from that of peers with typical hearing.
期刊介绍:
Mission: LSHSS publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to the practice of audiology and speech-language pathology in the schools, focusing on children and adolescents. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research and is designed to promote development and analysis of approaches concerning the delivery of services to the school-aged population. LSHSS seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of audiology and speech-language pathology as practiced in schools, including aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; childhood apraxia of speech; classroom acoustics; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; fluency disorders; hearing-assistive technology; language disorders; literacy disorders including reading, writing, and spelling; motor speech disorders; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; voice disorders.