Deaf and hearing children do not differ in accuracy of object counting or creating sets of a given cardinality up to 14 items¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2002 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Mixed ANOVAs with hearing status as between-subjects factor found no significant effect of hearing status on object counting or creation task accuracy. → 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

Mixed-design ANOVAs on object counting and creation task accuracy with hearing status as between-subjects factor and set size as within-subject factor; no significant hearing-status effect or interaction. No effect size is printed, so the null is not an equivalence claim.

"These analyses yielded no significant effects of hearing status, nor was the interaction with hearing status significant."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Access — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Deaf children produce shorter conventional number strings in abstract counting than hearing children of the same school level, with a roughly 2-year delay — related
• In object counting, deaf and hearing children make similar attention and principle errors, but deaf children make more number-string errors — related
• 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 — related
• Cross-cultural evidence: adults without a counting system fail to develop exact representations of numbers beyond 3 or 4 despite a normal ANS — related