Deaf children produce shorter conventional number strings in abstract counting than hearing children of the same school level, with a roughly 2-year delay¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2002 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Hearing children's mean abstract counting (strict and lenient scores) was higher than deaf children's, and the deaf group's highest number did not increase linearly with age. → Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem 2002
Evidence¶
Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem 2002¶
Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem. (2002). Counting in Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2660
q3 · i? · associational · r1
Group comparison ANOVAs on abstract counting in a study of 21 deaf and 28 hearing children matched by school year. Hearing children outperformed deaf children on both strict and lenient scores, F(1, 43) = 25.20 and F(1, 43) = 24.18, both p < .001; no effect size is printed.
"revealed significant effects of hearing status on the strict score, F(1, 43) 5 25.20; p , .001, as well as on the lenient score, F(1, 43) 5 24.18; p , .001. Hearing children's mean abstract counting was higher than that of deaf children, whatever the score."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Access — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Cross-cultural evidence: adults without a counting system fail to develop exact representations of numbers beyond 3 or 4 despite a normal ANS — related
- In object counting, deaf and hearing children make similar attention and principle errors, but deaf children make more number-string errors — related
- Linguistic delay may affect verbal mathematical abilities without impairing conceptual counting development, as deaf children's one-to-one correspondence understanding was age-appropriate — a broader claim this one bears on
- Deaf children's abstract-counting errors reflect the rule-bound base-5 structure of Belgian French Sign Language: they stop at production-rule boundaries and make fewer omission errors than hearing children — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Deaf and hearing children do not differ in accuracy of object counting or creating sets of a given cardinality up to 14 items — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
deaf-children-abstract-counting-delay |
title |
Deaf children produce shorter conventional number strings in abstract counting than hearing children of the same school level, with a roughly 2-year delay |
description |
Deaf children produce shorter conventional number strings in abstract counting than hearing children of the same school level, with a roughly 2-year delay |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2002 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jacqueline-leybaert-and-marie-noëlle-van-cutsem-2002 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.