Lund Emily, Miller Carly, Douglas W Michael, Werfel Krystal
Davies School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX.
Department of Neurology, Memory and Aging Center and Dyslexia Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2020 Dec;5(6):1366-1379. doi: 10.1044/2020_persp-20-00023. Epub 2020 Aug 17.
The purpose of this article was to examine evidence that (a) published measures may tap different categories of print knowledge and result in disparate findings in the literature, (b) concept vocabulary knowledge in children with hearing loss may exacerbate deficits in conceptual print knowledge, and (c) concept vocabulary can be taught via direct instruction for preschool children with hearing loss.
In Study 1, an item analysis of published print knowledge measures was performed to determine the prevalence of concept vocabulary in test items. Additionally, the performance on a conceptual print knowledge measure was compared for preschool children with and without hearing loss. In Study 2, four preschool children participated in a multiple probe across behaviors treatment design to determine if concept vocabulary could be explicitly taught to children with hearing loss.
Differences emerged in use of concept vocabulary on test items across the measures, which may explain disparate findings that have been reported in this area. Additionally, children with hearing loss performed lower than children with typical hearing on items that contained concept vocabulary but not on items that did not. Finally, we found initial evidence that direct instruction can improve concept vocabulary for children with hearing loss, and it might not be necessary to separately target each concept category.
This series of studies lays groundwork for future research confirming a connection between conceptual print knowledge and conceptual vocabulary knowledge, and offers evidence for intervention that could be used clinically to teach conceptual vocabulary.
本文旨在研究以下证据:(a)已发表的测评方法可能涉及不同类别的印刷知识,并在文献中导致不同的研究结果;(b)听力损失儿童的概念词汇知识可能会加剧其概念印刷知识的缺陷;(c)对于有听力损失的学龄前儿童,可以通过直接教学来教授概念词汇。
在研究1中,对已发表的印刷知识测评方法进行了项目分析,以确定测试项目中概念词汇的出现频率。此外,比较了有和没有听力损失的学龄前儿童在概念印刷知识测评中的表现。在研究2中,四名学龄前儿童参与了一项跨行为的多探针治疗设计,以确定是否可以向听力损失儿童明确教授概念词汇。
各项测评的测试项目在概念词汇的使用上出现了差异,这可能解释了该领域已报道的不同研究结果。此外,在包含概念词汇的项目上,听力损失儿童的表现低于听力正常的儿童,但在不包含概念词汇的项目上则不然。最后,我们发现初步证据表明,直接教学可以提高听力损失儿童的概念词汇,而且可能没有必要分别针对每个概念类别。
这一系列研究为未来证实概念印刷知识与概念词汇知识之间联系的研究奠定了基础,并为临床上可用于教授概念词汇的干预措施提供了证据。