↓ Skip to main content

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 2,188)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
Title
What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wyatte C. Hall

Abstract

A long-standing belief is that sign language interferes with spoken language development in deaf children, despite a chronic lack of evidence supporting this belief. This deserves discussion as poor life outcomes continue to be seen in the deaf population. This commentary synthesizes research outcomes with signing and non-signing children and highlights fully accessible language as a protective factor for healthy development. Brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants. This may lead to professionals and organizations advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implantation and spreading misinformation. The existence of one-time-sensitive-language acquisition window means a strong possibility of permanent brain changes when spoken language is not fully accessible to the deaf child and sign language exposure is delayed, as is often standard practice. There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications. This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy. Claims of cochlear implant- and spoken language-only approaches being more effective than sign language-inclusive approaches are not empirically supported. Cochlear implants are an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children. Priorities of deaf child development should focus on healthy growth of all developmental domains through a fully-accessible first language foundation such as sign language, rather than auditory deprivation and speech skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 371 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 15%
Student > Bachelor 51 14%
Student > Master 43 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 8%
Researcher 24 6%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 111 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 16%
Linguistics 42 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 9%
Social Sciences 28 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 7%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 128 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 264. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2024.
All research outputs
#140,734
of 25,848,962 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#12
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,190
of 427,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#1
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,962 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.