Peer Interactions of Preschool Children With and Without Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the social interaction skills of children with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) in terms of how they manage conversational exchanges with peers. This study compared the initiation and response skills of children with SPHL with those of children with typical hearing during group play in integrated preschool programs. METHOD: Two groups of 12 children were matched on a number of variables and assessed for intelligence, language, speech, and social development. All initiations, responses, and resulting interactions during 20 min of group play were transcribed and coded. Outcome measures included number and type of initiation strategies, number of responses, and length of interactions. RESULTS: Despite poorer speech, language, and social development, there were no significant differences in initiation and response skills measured between children with SPHL and their matched peers. The small sample size may have made differences difficult to detect; however, playmates initiated interactions less often with the children with SPHL and ignored their initiations more often than those of other children. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children with SPHL were excluded from interactions by their playmates. Having age-appropriate language skills did not ensure successful peer interactions. Inclusive preschool programs may consider offering classroom-wide social skills training to enhance interaction opportunities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".