Hearing children are rated as more capable in reading and more socially successful than deaf children by both children and parents¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr1–r2·q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2017: baselines and conditions change
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 were seen as more capable in reading than deaf children. → Marschark M 2012
q3 i? Hearing children were seen as more socially successful than deaf children. → Marschark M 2012 (2)
Evidence¶
Marschark M 2012¶
Marschark M, Bull R, Sapere P, Nordmann E, Skene W, Lukomski J, Lumsden S. (2012). Do You See What I See? School Perspectives of Deaf Children, Hearing Children, and Their Parents. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.719106
q3 · i? · associational · r2
The 2 by 2 ANOVA on the Reading scale showed only a hearing-status main effect, with "hearing children were seen as more capable in reading than deaf children overall"; the article notes this is consistent with objective achievement testing findings. No effect size was printed.
"An analysis involving the Reading scale yielded only a significant main effect of hearing status, F (1, 106) = 5.58, MSE = .82, as hearing children were seen as more capable in reading than deaf children overall"
Marschark M 2012 (2)¶
Marschark M, Bull R, Sapere P, Nordmann E, Skene W, Lukomski J, Lumsden S. (2012). Do You See What I See? School Perspectives of Deaf Children, Hearing Children, and Their Parents. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.719106
q3 · i? · associational · r1
In the three-group ANOVA (deaf with implants, deaf without implants, hearing), the Social-Emotional scale showed a hearing-status main effect: "hearing children were seen to be more socially successful than deaf children with or without cochlear implants". No effect size was printed.
"a main effect of hearing status, F (2, 90) = 5.87, MSE = .48, as hearing children were seen to be more socially successful than deaf children with or without cochlear implants, who had almost identical scores"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Access — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Identity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Cochlear implant use is not associated with greater perceived academic or social success, and children with implants are rated lowest in reading — related
- Deaf parental hearing status, sign language use at home, and attendance at a school for the deaf are each associated with more positive perceptions of deaf children's social success — related
- Parents rate their children as more socially successful than the children rate themselves, regardless of hearing status — related
- Child-parent concordance is no greater for hearing families than for families with deaf children — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
hearing-children-rated-more-capable-reading-social |
title |
Hearing children are rated as more capable in reading and more socially successful than deaf children by both children and parents |
description |
Hearing children are rated as more capable in reading and more socially successful than deaf children by both children and parents |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2012 |
recheck_by |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — marschark-m-2012, marschark-m-2012-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.