Deaf children's working memory disadvantage is task-dependent: no group differences on Spatial Span Forward or narrative measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There were no group differences among native signers, non-native signers, and hearing children on the Spatial Span Forward task, nor on BSL Narrative content or structure scores. → Marshall C 2015

Evidence¶

Marshall C 2015¶

Marshall C, Jones A, Denmark T, Mason K, Atkinson J, Botting N and Morgan G (2015) Deaf children's non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience. Front. Psychol. 6:527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00527

q3 · i? · associational · r2

ANCOVAs controlling for age and WASI score across the three groups found no significant group effect on the Spatial Span Forward task. Narrative content and structure also showed no group differences (content F(2, 53) = 0.542, p = 0.585; structure F(2, 53) = 0.174, p = 0.841).

"There were no group differences for the Spatial Span Forward task, F(2, 54) = 2.474, p = 0.094."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Hearing children significantly outscored the deaf group as a whole on Spatial Span Backward and Odd One Out — related
• Deaf non-native signers scored lower than hearing children on executive-loaded non-verbal working memory tasks, while deaf native signers did not differ from hearing children — a broader claim this one bears on