Submitted manuscript, 229 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of deaf and hearing children’s reading comprehension profiles
AU - Kyle, Fiona E.
AU - Cain, Kate
PY - 2015/4
Y1 - 2015/4
N2 - Purpose: Although deaf children typically exhibit severe delays in reading achievement, there is a paucity of research looking at their text level comprehension skills. We present a comparison of deaf and normally hearing readers’ profiles on a commonly used reading comprehension assessment: the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA-II). Methods: Comprehension questions were coded into three types: literal questions; local cohesion questions; and global coherence questions. Deaf children were matched to three groups of hearing children: chronological age matched controls, reading age matched controls; and a group of poor comprehenders. Results: Deaf children had significantly weaker reading comprehension skills than both chronological and reading-age matched controls but their skills were commensurate with poor comprehenders. All groups found it easier to make inferences to establish local cohesion than those required to establish global coherence. Discussion/conclusions: These results suggest that deaf children’s reading comprehension profiles are remarkably similar to those of poor comprehenders. These findings are discussed in light of the potential differences in underlying causes of reading difficulties in these two groups.
AB - Purpose: Although deaf children typically exhibit severe delays in reading achievement, there is a paucity of research looking at their text level comprehension skills. We present a comparison of deaf and normally hearing readers’ profiles on a commonly used reading comprehension assessment: the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA-II). Methods: Comprehension questions were coded into three types: literal questions; local cohesion questions; and global coherence questions. Deaf children were matched to three groups of hearing children: chronological age matched controls, reading age matched controls; and a group of poor comprehenders. Results: Deaf children had significantly weaker reading comprehension skills than both chronological and reading-age matched controls but their skills were commensurate with poor comprehenders. All groups found it easier to make inferences to establish local cohesion than those required to establish global coherence. Discussion/conclusions: These results suggest that deaf children’s reading comprehension profiles are remarkably similar to those of poor comprehenders. These findings are discussed in light of the potential differences in underlying causes of reading difficulties in these two groups.
U2 - 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000053
DO - 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000053
M3 - Journal article
VL - 35
SP - 144
EP - 156
JO - Topics in Language Disorders
JF - Topics in Language Disorders
SN - 0271-8294
IS - 2
ER -