Comparing motor development of deaf children of deaf parents and deaf children of hearing parents

Deaf children of Deaf parents perform better academically (Ritter-Brinton & Stewart, 1992), linguistically (Courtin, 2000; M. Harris, 2001; Vaccari & Marschark, 1997), and socially (Hadadian & Rose, 1991; M. Harris, 2001) than Deaf children of hearing parents. Twenty-nine Deaf children in residential schools were assessed to determine if a significant difference also exists in motor development between Deaf children with Deaf parents and Deaf children with hearing parents. In the locomotor area, 78.6% of Deaf children of Deaf parents and 73.3% of Deaf children of hearing parents reached or surpassed average performance levels. In regard to object control, 92.9% of Deaf children of Deaf parents and 93.3% of Deaf children of hearing parents reached or surpassed average performance levels. The study results show no significant difference between the motor development of Deaf children of Deaf parents and Deaf children of hearing parents.     

Self-concept among hearing Chinese children of deaf parents

This paper discusses a study of Chinese children in Hong Kong that compared the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents with the self-concepts of hearing children of hearing parents. The study was based on the responses to a questionnaire given to 42 deaf couples and their 70 hearing children, and 41 hearing couples and their 82 hearing children. It found no differences in the self-concepts of hearing children of deaf parents and hearing children of hearing parents. However, it did find that deaf parents had lower self-concepts than hearing parents.     

Influence and adaptability in families with deaf parents and hearing children

This study assessed the influence of individual family members in functional families, primarily to determine whether hearing children of deaf parents have more influence than do hearing children of hearing parents. Eight families with deaf parents and a hearing child and eight all hearing families were videotaped while planning a family meal together. It was found that deaf-parented families share many traits with hearing families. However, there were some differences. The hearing children of deaf parents had a greater number and percentage of their ideas accepted than did the hearing children of hearing parents. Differences were also noted between the deaf fathers and the hearing fathers. The deaf-parented families were more adaptable, as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The observed difference in child influence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Deafness of one family member, in an auditory dependent environment, may require a more flexible family power structure. Professionals assessing deaf-parented families should be sensitive to the special adaptive needs required for healthy functioning of the family.     

Disciplinary choices of mothers of deaf children and mothers of normally hearing children

OBJECTIVE: To assess the disciplinary preferences of mothers of profoundly deaf children and normally hearing children in a test of the hypothesized link between child disabilities and punitive parenting. METHOD: Disciplinary preferences of mothers seeking a cochlear implant for their profoundly deaf child (n=57), mothers not seeking an implant for their deaf child (n=22), and mothers of normally hearing children (n=27) were assessed using an analog task in which subjects select discipline in response to slide images of children engaging in normative or frankly deviant behaviors that are potentially irritating. RESULTS: Results indicated that mothers of children with profound hearing impairments were more likely to select physical discipline in response to depicted child transgressions and more likely to escalate to physical discipline when the depicted child was described as persisting in the transgression. Additionally, escalation was more probable in response to scenes depicting children engaged in dangerous and destructive acts than in rule-violating acts. CONCLUSIONS: Findings were consistent with the hypothesized link between childhood disabilities and child maltreatment as well as the hypothesis that children with disabilities associated with communication problems could be at risk of physical abuse.     

Parenting stress and social support in hearing mothers of deaf and hearing children: a longitudinal study

This longitudinal study investigated the impact of child deafness on mothers' stress, size of social networks, and satisfaction with social support. Twenty-three hearing mothers of deaf children and 23 hearing mothers of hearing children completed a series of self-report questionnaires when their children were 22 months, 3, and 4 years old. When children were 22 months, more mothers of deaf children reported pessimism about their children's achieving self-sufficiency and concerns about their children's communication abilities than did mothers of hearing children. When their children were 3 and 4 years old, mothers of deaf and hearing children did not differ in their reports of general parenting stress, as measured by the Parenting Stress Index (PSI). Likewise, mothers' ratings of satisfaction with social support were not affected by child deafness, nor did they change developmentally. Mothers of deaf and hearing children did differ in the types of support networks utilized. Mothers of deaf 22-month-olds reported significantly larger professional support networks, while mothers of hearing children reported significantly larger general support networks across all child ages. Mothers' feelings of stress and satisfaction with social support were very stable across the 2 years examined. The results suggest that most mothers of deaf children do not feel a high level of general parenting stress or dissatisfaction with their lives and support networks. However, mothers of deaf children are likely to feel stress in areas specific to deafness. In addition, because parenting stress was highly stable, special efforts should be made to intervene when mothers of deaf children are expressing high levels of stress.     

Spelling without phonology: A study of deaf and hearing children

To what extent does phonology play a role in spelling English words? The written responses of deaf students and groups of hearing children to five tasks were subjected to quantitative and qualitative analyses. The first three tasks were used to see if deaf students utilized phonology when they generated their own words and to compare their spelling performance with that of hearing subjects. The fourth and fifth tasks were designed to compare the spelling performance of deaf and hearing subjects when they were required to reproduce visually presented common words. Results showed that deaf students, who were chronologically much older, were not better spellers than hearing children from the fifth grade. Analysis of data revealed little evidence that the deaf students involved in the present study utilize phonology in spelling. Nor did word-specific visual memory for entire words appears to play a role in spelling by deaf students. Rote visual memory for letter patterns and sequences of letters within words, however, appears to play a role in the spelling by deaf students. It is concluded that sensitivity to the stochastic-dependent probabilities of letter sequences may aid spelling up to certain point but phonology is essential for spelling words whose structure is morphophonemically complex.

     

Bimodal bilingual language development of hearing children of deaf parents

Adopting a bimodal bilingual language acquisition model, this qualitative case study is the first in Germany to investigate the spoken and sign language development of hearing children of deaf adults (codas). The spoken language competence of six codas within the age range of 3;10 to 6;4 is assessed by a series of standardised tests (SETK 3-5, TROG-D, PDSS). Additionally, a language assessment tool designed specifically for hearing bilingual children named HAVAS 5 is employed to measure both the children’s spoken and sign language abilities. A heterogeneous picture emerges: all codas show abilities equal to those of monomodal monolingual children in their age range with regard to German sentence structure and verb inflection and an extensive receptive vocabulary, but deviations from the age norm are observed for the production of verbs and prepositions. Furthermore, three codas show below average T-values in some grammatical subtests. Overall, the findings suggest that at least some codas may acquire both of their languages (i.e. spoken and signed German) simultaneously. However, our study also indicates that the spoken language development of some codas as well as the acquisition context of this minority group strongly resembles a form of successive language acquisition that is known from children who acquire German as an early second language in a migration background.     

Prevalence of socioemotional problems in deaf and hard of hearing children in Germany

The German version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used in a study to examine its usefulness in diagnosing socioemotional problems of deaf and hard of hearing children. The SDQ parent version was completed by 213 mothers and 213 fathers. The factor structure and reliability were tested, and the prevalence rate of socioemotional problems determined and compared to the German standardization sample. The statistical data were uniformly satisfactory; thus, the SDQ can serve as a valid yet economical screening procedure to identify endangered children at an early age, and to refer them to more exact diagnosis and subsequent advice and therapy. This is very important, as the prevalence of socioemotional problems in the sample of deaf and hard of hearing children was clearly greater for almost all scores, a result that is nearly identical with findings from many other recent studies.     

Comparing creative thinking abilities and reasoning ability of deaf and hearing children

This study focuses on comparing the creative thinking and reasoning abilities of deaf and hearing children. Two groups of deaf (N = 210) and hearing children (N = 200) were chosen based on specific criteria. Two instruments were used in the study: theTorrance Tests of Creative Thinking‐Figural, Form A and Matrix Analogous Test. Canonical Correlation analysis and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used to analyze the data. The canonical correlation analyses revealed one significant dimension in both deaf and hearing children. The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed that there are some similarities and differences between the deaf and hearing samples regarding creative thinking abilities.     

Parenting styles of mothers with deaf or hard-of-hearing children and hearing siblings

The present study aims to determine whether rearing a deaf or hard-of-hearing (d/hh) child would differentiate the parenting and disciplinary preference of parents between the d/hh and the hearing child. The parenting styles of 30 hearing mothers from Cyprus were assessed using the Greek version of the Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire. Additionally, mothers rated sibling interactions using the sibling inventory of behavior. The results indicated that the dominant parenting style for both the hearing and the d/hh children among the participating mothers was the authoritative type and the least prevalent parental types were the permissive and the strict. Moreover, mothers' perceptions of sibling relationship were found to be a significant factor in predicting mothers' reported parenting styles in this sample. The contribution of the present findings to our knowledge of the parenting characteristics and practices of families who have a d/hh child along with their possible implications for child and family services are discussed.     

Conversations between deaf children and their hearing mothers: pragmatic and dialogic characteristics

We examined communication between hearing mothers and their deaf or hearing children longitudinally at child-ages 22 months and 3 years. Specifically, we analyzed both the effects of child deafness and developmental change on pragmatic and dialogic characteristics of communication. From 22 months to 3 years, deaf and hearing children's communicative skills improved similarly along some dimensions: as they grew older, both deaf and hearing children increased the amount they communicated, became increasingly responsive to their mothers' attentional focus, and were responsible for initiating a higher proportion of the dyads' conversations. On the other hand, deaf children were less skilled at maintaining topics, and the pragmatic function of their communication was more likely to be unclear compared to hearing children. Deaf children were also more likely to direct their mothers and less likely to ask questions than hearing children. Communication by hearing mothers was primarily examined to determine the degree to which they controlled the interactions. Overall, mothers of deaf children were only more controlling along one dimension. Mothers of deaf children used more response controls than mothers of hearing children. However, the majority of measures suggested they did not exert more topic or turn-taking controls than did mothers of hearing children. In addition, mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed equally sensitive to their children's communication abilities. Communication by mothers of both deaf and hearing children changed in similar ways as their children developed. Most of the differences in communication by mothers of deaf and hearing children seemed attributable to the deaf children's linguistic delays. The results suggest that intervention efforts should be focused on fostering linguistic development and not general communication skills or changing maternal conversational control.