Upload
brianna-bernard
View
4
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
79612940
Citation preview
Evidence for Website Claims aboutthe Benefits of Teaching SignLanguage to Infants and Toddlerswith Normal Hearing
Lauri H. Nelson*, Karl R. White and Jennifer GreweUtah State University, Logan, Utah USA
The development of proficient communication skills in infantsand toddlers is an important component to child development.A popular trend gaining national media attention is teachingsign language to babies with normal hearing whose parentsalso have normal hearing. Thirty-three websites were identifiedthat advocate sign language for hearing children as a way ofpromoting better developmental outcomes. These sites makeseveral claims about the positive benefits of teaching hearinginfants and toddlers to sign, such as earlier communication,improved language development, increased IQ, reduced tan-trums, higher self-esteem, and improved parent–child bonding.Without endorsing or disparaging these claims, the purpose ofthis article was to evaluate the strength of evidence cited onwebsites that promote products to teach young children to usesign language. Cumulatively, 82 pieces of evidence were citedby the websites as supporting research. However, over 90% ofthese citations were opinion articles without any supportingdata or descriptions of products and only eight were empiricalresearch studies relevant to the benefits of teaching sign lan-guage to young children with normal hearing. Unfortunately,there is not enough high-quality evidence cited on these web-sites to draw research-based conclusions about whether teach-ing sign language to young children with normal hearingresults in better developmental outcomes. Copyright © 2012John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: baby sign language; sign language for hearing toddlers
*Correspondence to: Lauri H. Nelson, PhD, Utah State University, 2620 Old Main Hill,Logan, UT 84322, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Infant and Child DevelopmentInf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)Published online 10 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/icd.1748
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Communication, or the ability to participate in a meaningful exchange of informa-tion with another person, is a fundamental component of human interactions.Developing proficiency in communication skills during early childhood is univer-sally regarded as an important outcome in child development (Luze et al., 2001).Because communication is an exchange of both the expression of one’s thoughtsor ideas (expressive language) and the ability to understand the thoughts or ideasexpressed by someone else (receptive language), most parents are eager to witnessthe emergence of these skills in their children beginning in early infancy.
Typically developing infants show evidence of a natural emergence of expressiveand receptive communicative behaviours. Most infants follow a predictable patternof speech development, including babbling at 5–10months of age, comprehensionof words and concepts at 8–10months of age, productions of words or word approx-imations beginning near 12months of age, and the production of word combina-tions emerging at 14–24months of age (Coplan, 1995; Oller et al., 2006).
As children enter their second year of life, generally, they understand more thanthey can verbally express. Contributing to this disparity is the physical motor skilldevelopment necessary for expressive speech productions, which occurs later thancognitive development needed for receptive speech comprehension skills. For ex-ample, growth within the respiratory system is required to generate adequate airpressure and for respiratory action to be sufficiently coordinated with the anatomyof the larynx. The size and position of the larynx undergo significant changes duringthe first and second years of life along with neurological maturation of the speechand language centers of the brain. All of these mechanisms must experience suffi-cient growth and development for a child to produce early verbal productionsand, ultimately, understandable speech (Kent, 1999). This physiological processoccurs within the developmental time frame in which toddlers are beginning todevelop distinct preferences for what they desire, with the common theory thatthe inability to express these desires can precipitate tantrum behaviours. However,until these anatomical and neurological processes are poised for the onset of speechproduction skills, the communication capabilities of most toddlers are limited.Therefore, many parents strive to identify methods or strategies to assist their childin achieving or accelerating optimal expressive and receptive communication skills.
A popular trend gaining national media attention is teaching sign language tobabies with normal hearing whose parents also have normal hearing (e.g.,Anthony & Lindert, 2005; Azar, 1998; Ladino, 2003; Sanchez, 2001; Snoddon,2000). The premise of this strategy is to provide infants and toddlers with the skillsto communicate their needs or desires prior to the natural emergence of the motorand linguistic development required to produce verbal speech. The popularity ofusing sign language with normal-hearing infants is considerable. The use of signlanguage with hearing infants has been featured on popular TV shows (e.g.,Oprah, Dateline, Good Morning America, Today Show) and in general circulationmagazines and newspapers (e.g., Parenting, Newsweek, Los Angeles Times, TheWashington Post, U.S. News, USAToday). Hundreds of baby sign language booksare available that advocate the practice of using signed representations of words toincrease communication skills in infants and toddlers. An internet search yieldednumerous advertisements with directives to several different websites. As shownin the results section of this article, specific claims of direct benefits of teaching signskills to infants and young children are promoted on these websites, such as anincreased ability to communicate; improved language, literacy, and cognitiveskills; reduced frustration; and better parent–child bonding.
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 475
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
To achieve the benefits and outcomes described on baby sign language websites,a variety of teaching tools, such as DVDs, audio tapes, instructional books, elec-tronic books, and flashcards are advertised for purchase. These websites promoteeither their own products or they refer consumers to the products of others. Inaddition, some websites promote their product or program by networking withprivate individuals as a business opportunity, such as becoming a trained instructorof a particular technique or program of infant sign language. Some websites havededicated sections for daycare providers and preschool instructors.
Purpose of the Study
The popularity of this trend has become so widespread that the benefits describedon sign language websites may be accepted as fact without substantiation.Although website businesses designed to attract internet consumer spendingclearly are not new, sites targeted to parents that advertise products that promisepositive outcomes for their children are more emotionally charged than generalproducts available for purchase. Therefore, the goals of this study were to (1) iden-tify websites that promote the practice of teaching sign language to hearing infantsand toddlers and identify the number and type of claims that websites makeregarding the benefits of this practice; (2) analyze the accuracy of these claimsbased on supporting research listed on websites; and (3) evaluate the methodo-logical quality of the empirical research listed on websites as support for statedclaims. This content analysis was not intended to either endorse or discouragethe practice of teaching sign language to hearing infants. Rather, the goal was toevaluate the credibility of evidence used to support the claims made on the web-sites so that parents and consumers can make informed decisions regarding theaccuracy and validity of these claims and the potential benefit to their child.
METHODS
Sample
A detailed examination of the website claims, using content analysis, provided theframework for this study. Content analysis is a research technique for making infer-ences through objective, quantitative, and systematic analysis of a communication orconsumer message (Barr & Linebarger, 2010; Fenstermacher et al., 2010; Kassarjian,1977; Vaala et al., 2010). The first step in the analysis required a comprehensive inter-net search to identify all of the websites whose primary purpose was to promote theuse of sign language with pre-linguistic normal-hearing children of hearing parents.Non–English-speaking websites and blogs that discussed using sign language withchildren with normal hearing were excluded from the review. Sites were identifiedby entering ‘baby’, ‘sign language’, ‘infant’, and ‘gesture’ into a Google Internetsearch engine. Thirty-threewebsiteswere found, and each sitewas evaluated to iden-tify the specific outcomes the websites claim that parents can expect when infantsand toddlers with normal hearing are taught to communicate using sign language.1
Analysis of Website Claims
Next in the content analysis was the compilation of outcome statements listed on thewebsites, which yielded a variety of similarly worded promises of positive impact inareas of communication, language, cognition, and behaviour. Each statement of
476 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
benefit was documented in a spreadsheet and analyzed by the authors to identifycommon content areas. For instance, some websites stated that young childrenwho learn to sign will experience feelings of satisfaction, accomplishment, and em-powerment. Other websites described an increase in self-esteem and self-confidence.These descriptors were viewed as similar claims and categorized together. Similarly,websites used various phrases relative to cognitive benefits, such as acceleratedbrain development, enhanced memory, increased speed of spatial reasoning, andincreased IQ. These descriptors also were viewed as comparable and were categor-ized together. From this analysis, six categories of ‘claims’ were identified that web-sites make about the benefits to children that result from sign language instruction.Table 1 describes the claims and lists the number of websites making each claim.
To further illustrate, www.signbabies.com states on their website that teachingbabies to sign will ‘stop tantrums and start conversations; sign language helpsteach toddlers to talk and improve IQ scores’; www.signingtime.com states that‘baby sign language reduces frustration and tantrums; you can strengthen yourchild’s speaking, reading, writing, and spelling; you can build strong parentalbonds as you focus on language with your child; using sign language, childrencan develop literacy skills before they start school’; www.babysigningtime.comstates that ‘no more tantrums; stimulate early learning, language skills, and largervocabulary; create a window into your child’s mind and heart; and instill confi-dence and security through understanding’; and www.kindersigns.com states that‘baby signing will result in earlier verbal language, will reduce frustration betweenparents and their babies, will enhance receptive and expressive vocabulary, willhelp children learn to read more easily, will enhance a baby’s creative ability, willresult in a higher IQ of 10–12 points, and will help promote a closer parent/child/caregiver bond’. The analysis of claims made on these websites revealed a greatdeal of consistency in the claimed benefits, with almost all websites saying thathearing children who are taught sign language will be able to communicate theirneeds better, develop language faster, have a higher IQ, and have fewer tantrums.All websites were checked twice for accuracy, with additional random checks tomonitor potential website content changes. The URLs of the sites included in theanalysis and the claims made on each website are shown in Appendix A.
Analysis of Claims Based on Supporting Research
Even though there is consistency among the websites in the claims being made, itis important to know how credible the evidence is which is cited to support theseclaims. Therefore, the third step in the content analysis involved a comprehensivesearch and documentation of all the research cited on the websites. Each website
Table 1. Claims made by 33 websites about teaching sign language to children with normalhearing
Description of claim Frequency cited
1) Earlier communication of needs and thoughts 332) Increased language or speech development, improved literacy skills 293) Increased IQ or cognitive skills 274) Reduced frustration, tantrums, or emotional outbursts 275) Increased parent/child bonding 226) Increased self-esteem, feelings of satisfaction, accomplishment 19
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 477
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
was searched at least two times on different days to obtain a combined listing of allof the research evidence cited to support the claims made by that website. A var-iety of evidence types were found, including journal articles, book chapters, books,newspaper articles, online articles, professional conference presentations, andopinions by alleged experts. Each source of evidence was categorized accordingto research type (e.g., empirical studies, opinion articles, sign language instructionbooks, articles not relevant to teaching sign language to infants and toddlers).Personal anecdotal experiences or testimonials that did not cite evidence wereexcluded from the analysis. Evidence about the benefits of teaching sign languageto children with disabilities was not included in this review.
Studies documenting the natural emergence of gestures, if there was no teach-ing of sign language, were excluded from the analysis. An example of such a studywas reported by Iverson and Goldin-Meadow (2005), who examined the linkbetween naturally emerging gestures and early language development. In thisstudy, 10 typically developing infants with normal hearing were followed longitu-dinally between the ages of 10 and 24months. The researchers videotaped the chil-dren with a primary caregiver in the home during play or snack time to evaluatewhether the child’s natural use of gestures to refer to specific objects was relatedto the emergence of verbal labels for those objects. The researchers reported thatnine of the 10 children produced a majority of object references using gestures atthe beginning of the study and that none of the children used gestures for themajority of their communications at the final session. The authors concluded thatgesture both precedes and is tightly related to language development and mayfacilitate future learning. Although some researchers may hypothesize thatexpanding natural gestures by teaching sign language will result in improved lan-guage development, studies of naturally emerging gestures are not evidence thatthis will occur. Therefore, this article or others similarly designed (e.g., Acredolo& Goodwyn, 1988; Vallotton, 2008), when no sign language was purposefullytaught, is not relevant as evidence of the benefits to teaching sign language toinfants and toddlers.
Some websites referenced research studies of school-aged children (Bonvillianet al., 1988; Daniels, 2004; Felzer, 1998; Griffith, 1985). Such studies may explorethe efficacy of implementing sign language instruction into the educational cur-riculum but do not provide support toward the claims made by websites whensign language is taught to infants and toddlers.
Evaluation of Methodological Quality of Empirical Evidence
The fourth step in the content analysis involved a detailed evaluation of the meth-odological quality of the eight empirical articles cited on the websites that studiedwhether teaching sign language to hearing infants and toddlers leads to better out-comes. Articles were identified and included in this category based on the followinginclusion criteria:
(1). a research question was asked and data were collected;(2). sign language, symbolic gestures, or other manual communication method
was purposefully taught to some or all children in the study before60months of age;
(3). the article was printed in the English language.
Each empirical study that met inclusion criteria was coded with regard to thestudy design, characteristics of participants, outcomes reported as a standardized
478 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
mean difference effect size (SMDES) whenever possible, and the methodologicalquality of the study (i.e., the degree to which credible evidence was given to sup-port conclusions). Methodological quality was rated using a five-point scale(1 = good, 3 = fair, 5 = poor) by evaluating the threats to internal validity, such assubject selection, test instrumentation, history, maturation, regression, and statis-tical procedures (Appendix C). All three authors coded each article, and any dis-agreement on coding of the evidence was discussed until agreement was reached.
RESULTS
Research to Support Website Claims
As shown in Table 2, a total of 82 sources of evidence were cited by these websitesas support for the claimed benefits of teaching sign language to hearing infantsand toddlers (citations for each source of evidence are shown in Appendix B). Onlyeight of the 82 sources of evidence were empirical research studies that evaluatedthe benefits of teaching sign language to young children with normal hearing. Ofthe eight empirical studies cited on the websites, four articles focused on whetherthere is an increase in communicative exchanges and signed vocabulary wheninfants are purposefully taught to sign, three articles focused on receptive vocabu-lary development, and one article focused on outcomes related to IQ. None of thewebsites listed any research at all to support claims of reduced tantrums, increasedparent–child bonding, or increased feelings of self-esteem.
Methodological Quality of Empirical Evidence
Table 3 summarizes key information about each of the empirical studies that wereused to support the claims made on the websites. Of the eight studies coded, fivearticles were authored by researchers Acredolo and Goodwyn and three articleswere authored by Daniels. These researchers advocate the use of symbolic gesturesand sign language to improve communication and language development ininfants. Acredolo and Goodwyn are the founders of Baby Signs, Inc.©, a compre-hensive baby signs website that offers sign language books, DVDs, and other
Table 2. Sources of evidence for claims made by websites regarding the benefits of teachingsign language to young children with normal hearing
Sources of evidenceTotal number
cited
Empirical studies that evaluated the benefits of teaching sign language to youngchildren with normal hearing
8
Article, book, or book chapter that gave an opinion but did not include empiricalevidence not previously reported
41
Articles or empirical studies on a topic not related to the benefits claimed on signlanguage websites
10
Descriptions of sign language training programs for school-aged children 11Sign language instructional books 4Empirical studies of how children naturally acquire gestures but not studies of thebenefits of sign language instruction
3
Articles that could not be located 5Total sources of evidence 82
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 479
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table3.
Cha
racteristics
ofresearch
stud
iescitedto
supp
ortbe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Stud
ydescription
andch
aracteristics
Metho
dolog
ical
quality
Article
(date)
Design
Age
atstart
ofstud
yAge
aten
dof
stud
yPu
rposeof
stud
yCon
clus
ions
ofau
thor(s)
SMDES
Validity
rating
(1=go
od!
5=po
or)
Validity
threatscoded
Com
men
tsof
metho
dolog
ical
quality
Acred
olo&
Goo
dwyn
(1985)
Casestud
y(n
=1)
12.5mon
ths
17.5mon
ths
Todocum
entthe
dev
elop
men
tof
spon
tane
ousan
dpu
rposefully
taug
htge
stures
inahe
aring
infant
ofhe
aring
parents.
Gesturals
igns
increased
this
child
’svo
cabu
lary
andwereapo
sitive
additionto
her
commun
icative
expe
rien
ces.
SMDES
:(couldno
tcalculate)
Validity
rating
:n/a
Validity
threatsc
oded
:other
•Su
bjectwas
thech
ildof
oneof
theau
thorsof
thestud
y•Sign
lang
uage
taug
htby
know
ledg
eableresearchers
•Itis
prob
lematic
toextend
conc
lusion
sfrom
acase
stud
yto
thege
neralp
opulation
Acred
olo&
Goo
dwyn
(1990)
Pre–po
stpilotstud
y(n
=6)
11mon
ths
(five
subjects)
13.75–21.5
Toevalua
teifpa
rents
canteachtheirinfants
symbo
licgestures
and
toexploretherelatio
nship
betw
eensymbo
licgesturingan
dverbal
lang
uage
developm
ent
Itispo
ssibleto
train
parentsto
teachgestures
toinfants.Su
bjectsshow
edlargeindividu
aldifferen
cesin
vocala
ndgestural
deve
lopm
ent,
with
ade
pend
ence
ofon
eon
theothe
r.
SMDES
:cou
ldno
tcalcu
late
Validity
rating
:4Validity
threatscode
d:selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,other
8mon
ths
(one
subject)
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
•The
rewas
nostud
ycontrolg
roup
•Pa
rticipan
tswereno
tblindas
tostud
ypu
rpose
(Contin
ues)
480 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table3.
(Con
tinu
ed)
Stud
ydescription
andch
aracteristics
Metho
dolog
ical
quality
•Pa
rent
repo
rtof
child
prog
ress;h
ighprob
ability
forrepo
rtingbias
•Po
tentialfor
large
variab
ility
inho
wpa
rents
interpretedchild
respon
ses
•Stud
ydid
notdescribeif
sign
swereus
edin
afunc
tion
alway
orifthey
werebo
undto
asing
lecontext
Goo
dwyn
Acred
olo&
Brow
n(2000)
Prospe
ctive
coho
rt11
mon
ths
36mon
ths
Eva
luated
theeffect
onve
rbal
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
tof
purposefully
encourag
ing
hearinginfantsto
use
simplege
stures
assymbo
ls.
Childrenareab
leto
use
gestures
whe
ntaug
htby
theirpa
rentsto
agreater
degree
than
whe
nthey
areno
ttaug
ht.Children
intheST
grou
pha
dexpressive
lang
uage
scores
that
were
high
erthan
theNIg
roup
at15
and24
mon
thsbu
twereno
thighe
rwhe
ntested
at19,30,or
36mon
ths.
SMDES:
0.34
Validityrating
:3ST
:(n=32)
Validity
threatscode
d:selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
other
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
NI:(n
=39)
VT:
(n=32)
•Pa
rticipan
tswereno
tblindas
tostud
ypu
rpose
•Allou
tcom
esscores
from
verbaltraining
grou
pwere
notreported
•Po
tentialfor
large
variab
ility
inho
wpa
rents
interpretedchild
respon
ses
Goo
dwyn
&Acred
olo
(1993)
Prospe
ctive
coho
rt(n
=22)
11mon
ths
App
roximately
15mon
ths
Com
paredag
ewhe
nthe
firstan
dfifthve
rbal
orge
stural
symbo
l
Onav
erag
e,ba
bies
develope
dsymbo
lsab
out
thesametim
ein
both
SMDES:
0.56
Validityrating
:3 (Contin
ues)
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 481
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table3.
(Con
tinu
ed)
Stud
ydescription
andch
aracteristics
Metho
dolog
ical
quality
(sub
jects
draw
nfrom
pilota
ndlong
itudinal
stud
ies)
dev
elop
edto
determine
whe
ther
commun
ication
occu
rsearlierin
the
gestural
mod
alityor
the
vocalm
odality
mod
alities,w
itha
tend
ency
fortheon
seto
fgestural
symbo
lsto
appe
arfirst.
Validitythreatscoded
:selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
othe
r•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
•Validity
threatsof
instrumentatio
n,testing,
potentialreportin
gbias
are
perpetua
tedfrom
thepilot
andlong
itudina
lstudies
Acred
olo&
Goo
dwyn
(2000)
Prospe
ctive
coho
rt1–
3ye
ars
8ye
ars
Com
pare
IQscores
ofchild
renwho
weretaug
htsign
asinfantsor
todd
lers
Childrenin
theST
grou
pha
dhigh
erscores
onthe
WISC-IIIthan
child
renin
theNIg
roup
.Nosign
lang
uage
interven
tion
occu
rred
betw
eeninitial
testingan
dthe
assessmen
tata
ge8.
SMDES:
0.80
Validityrating
:5ST
:(n=19)
Validitythreatscoded
:history,
maturation,
selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
mortality,othe
r
NI:(n
=24)
(sub
jects
draw
nfrom
long
itudinal
stud
y)•Stud
ymetho
dolog
yno
tclearlydescribed
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
stud
ygrou
pselectionan
dassign
men
tpe
rpetua
ted
from
original
stud
y•Verba
ltraininggrou
pno
tinclud
edin
this
stud
y•Noindicationthat
data
colle
ctorswereblindto
purposeof
stud
y•Noinform
ationab
out
educationaltrainingdu
ring
(Contin
ues)
482 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table3.
(Con
tinu
ed)
Stud
ydescription
andch
aracteristics
Metho
dolog
ical
quality
timebetw
eenthisstud
yan
dtheoriginal
stud
y•Sign
ificant
attritionfrom
original
stud
yDan
iels,M
.(1993)
Cross-
sectiona
l2.10–1
3.6
2.10–1
3.6
Evalua
tedvo
cabu
lary
performan
cein
hearing
child
renof
deaf
parents
who
learne
dASL
beginn
ingin
infancyan
dused
ASL
regu
larlyin
the
home
Vocab
ularystan
dard
scores
high
erin
stud
ygrou
pthan
publishe
dstan
dardized
norm
s,as
measu
redov
erbroa
dag
erang
e.
SMDES:
0.64
Validityrating
:4Validitythreatscoded
:selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
statistic
alproced
ures,o
ther
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
•Pa
rticipan
tswereno
tblindas
tostud
ypu
rpose
orhy
pothesis
•Scores
averag
edov
era
broa
dag
erang
e•Nocontrolg
roup
(autho
rused
assessment
stan
dardizationsampleas
thecompa
rativ
emeasure)
Dan
iels,M
.(2004)
Prospe
ctive
coho
rt(n
=60)
Treatm
ent
n=30
Con
trol:
n=30
Startof
pre-Kye
arEnd
ofpre-Kye
arEva
luated
vocabu
lary
performan
cein
child
ren
who
weretaug
htsign
compa
redwithch
ildren
ofthesameag
ewho
did
notreceivesign
instruction.
The
grou
pthat
received
sign
lang
uage
instructionscored
high
eron
avo
cabu
lary
test
than
theno
n-sign
grou
p.
SMDES:
1.30
Validityrating
:4Validitythreatscoded
:selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
statistic
alproced
ures,o
ther
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
(Contin
ues)
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 483
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table3.
(Con
tinu
ed)
Stud
ydescription
andch
aracteristics
Metho
dolog
ical
quality
•Noba
selin
escores
for
controlg
roup
priorto
interven
tion
•Pa
rticipan
tswereno
tblindas
tostud
ypu
rposeor
hypo
thesis
Dan
iels,M
.(1996)
Prospe
ctive
coho
rt(n
=19)
N/A
End
ofKye
arFo
llow-upvo
cabu
lary
measu
refrom
same
subjects
who
received
sign
lang
uage
instructionas
repo
rted
inDan
iels,1
994.
Nosign
lang
uage
instruction
occu
rred
duringthe
kind
erga
rten
year.
Vocab
ularyscores
were
repo
rted
tobe
high
erthan
norm
ative
stan
dardizationsample,
withconc
lusion
that
the
sign
ingbe
nefitha
dbe
enmaintaine
d.
SMDES
:cou
ldno
tcalcu
late
Validityrating
:5Validitythreatscoded
:history,
maturation,
selection,
instrumentatio
n,testing,
statistic
alproced
ures,o
ther
Same
subjects
asthosein
1994
stud
y(intervention
grou
pon
ly)
•Non
-ran
dom
ized
participan
tselection
perpetua
tedfrom
original
stud
y•Scores
from
control
grou
pwereno
tobtaine
d•Did
nota
ccou
ntforothe
rinstructiona
lvariables
that
may
have
influe
nced
vocabu
lary
performan
ce
ST=sign
training
grou
p;NI=
non-interven
tioncontrolg
roup
;VT=ve
rbaltraining
controlg
roup
;SMDES
=stan
dardized
meandifferen
ceeffectsize;W
ISC-III=Wechsler
IntelligenceScaleforChildren,
3rdEd
ition
.
484 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
similar products for sale, business opportunities for becoming a baby signsinstructor or consultant, classroom baby signs training kits, and information onhow interested organizations can become a certified baby sign center. Acredolo,Goodwyn, and Daniels have authored several articles, sign language books, andAmerican Sign Language (ASL) training workshops.
Empirical support for claim no. 1: increased ability to communicate needs and thoughtsFour studies were identified that evaluated the impact on communication and
signed vocabulary in infants and toddlers with normal hearing who are taughtto sign. In a case study, Acredolo and Goodwyn (1985) described the communica-tion behaviours of a female child named Kate from 12.5 to 17.5months of age, whowas the daughter of Linda Acredolo, one of the authors of the study. The studyevaluated both naturally emerging gestures and symbolic gestures that were pur-posefully taught. Study results indicated that Kate learned 29 signs between theages of 12.5 and 17.5months and that her vocabulary development was higherwhen compared with normative vocabulary milestones reported by Nelson(1973). The authors concluded that the use of gestural signs was a positiveaddition to this child’s communicative experiences. They reported that a directcorrelation between sign language and increased verbal language skill develop-ment could not be determined based on this single case study but that the resultsargue against the theory that the development of a gestural system delays vocallanguage acquisition. Although case studies can provide helpful descriptive infor-mation relative to the experiences of an individual, it is always problematic toextend conclusions drawn from a case study to the general population.
In a pilot study as a precursor to a longitudinal study, Acredolo and Goodwyn(1990) evaluated the efficacy of teaching infants to use idiosyncratic gestures tofacilitate vocabulary development and communication. The parents of six infantseach taught their child five specific gestures associated with a toy object and wereencouraged to develop any other object–gesture associations in which their childappeared to show interest. It is unclear if these subjects were a subset of the longi-tudinal study or how subjects were recruited or selected for study participation.Data collection consisted of weekly telephone interviews with parents to deter-mine the child’s progress in development of vocal words and in symbolic gesturesand to determine the point at which a label was being used in a meaningful orsymbolic way. Results of this study indicated that the six participants learnedan average of 20 signs each and that they developed verbal vocabulary in advanceof what would be expected based on previously published normative data(Nelson, 1973; Rescorla, 1980).
This study was rated as ‘fair–poor’ in terms of methodological quality (a ratingof 4 in the coding system that was used). Findings were based entirely on parentreport, and parents were informed of the purpose of the study and knew that itwas desirable for their child to develop as many signs and words as possible,resulting in a high probability for reporting bias. Study results do not describe aprotocol to ensure consistency in how parents interpret meaningful use of wordsof gestures, nor the degree to which study participants used the gestures in afunctional or truly symbolic way as opposed to being bound to a single context.Furthermore, there was not a control group of subjects who were not exposed togestural training, which by the authors’ own report, renders it impossible to deter-mine with any certainty that gestural training was the variable that had a positiveeffect on verbal language acquisition.
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 485
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Acredolo and Goodwyn began data collection in 1989 for a longitudinalcohort study funded by the National Institutes of Child Health and HumanDevelopment. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects on vocabu-lary and verbal language development when hearing infants are taught to usesimple gestures for communication. Data from this study were reported acrossseveral years and in a number of different publications. The study conductedby Goodwyn, Acredolo, and Brown (2000) is one of the articles that describesthe study outcomes and is referenced on several websites. This longitudinalstudy involves one experimental group and two control groups. The experimen-tal group was a Sign Training group (n= 32) in which parents were instructed tomodel symbolic gestures and to encourage their child to use them. Parents wereinformed of the study purpose, viewed a training video, and were made awareof the specific interest on documenting use of signs or gestures in infants. Thefirst control group was composed of parents of infants in a non-interventiongroup (n= 39) who received no instructions specific to using verbal or signedprompts with their children and who were not informed of the purpose of thestudy. The second control group was composed of parents of infants in a verbaltraining group (n= 32) who were encouraged to model verbal labels, but it is notclear if these parents were informed of the purpose of the study. Procedures forsubject recruitment were not described, and group assignment did not appear tobe randomized. Data were collected via telephone interview with parents every2weeks to report on the communicative progress of their child. The researchersreported using strategies in the telephone interview to ‘jog the memories’ of theparents; therefore, it is unclear if a systematic method of documenting thechild’s signed or verbal communications that occurred between each biweeklyreport was used.
Based on the parent interviews, it was reported that children in the sign lan-guage training group acquired an average of 20.4 signs or gestures. The research-ers compared these findings with an earlier study (Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1988) inwhich children who were not specifically taught to sign acquired an average offive gestures or signs, suggesting that children are able to use gestures and signswhen specifically taught by their parents to a greater degree than when they arenot taught. These data are relevant to the question of whether young children withnormal hearing can be taught sign language but do not address the claim that chil-dren who are taught sign language will have better developmental outcomes thanchildren who are not taught sign language. Furthermore, despite research byAcredolo and Goodwyn advocating the importance of naturally emerginggestures (Acredolo and Goodwyn, 1998; Acredolo and Goodwyn, 1988), no datawere collected on the spontaneous or naturally acquired use of gestures in eithercontrol group.
In addition to parent interviews to obtain data on vocabulary progress, theparents completed the MacArthur Communicative Developmental Inventory (Fensonet al., 1993) at 11, 15, 19, 24, and 30months of age. Expressive and receptivelanguage skills were evaluated at 15 and 19months using the Sequenced Inventoryof Communicative Development (Hedrick, Prather, & Tobin, 1984), as measuredthrough a variety of behavioural responses to verbal questions and commands.At 24, 30, and 36months of age, receptive and expressive language skills weremeasured using the Receptive- and Expressive-One-Word-Picture-Vocabulary Tests(Gardner, 1985). To measure receptive language with this assessment, four picturesare presented on each trial and the child is asked to point to the picture that depictsthe meaning of the word. Expressive language is measured by presenting a differ-ent picture on each trial and asking the child to label the picture. At 24months of
486 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
age, a free play session was completed to obtain Mean Length of Utterance, and aPhonemic Discrimination Taskwas completed at age 30months. Children in the signtraining group had expressive language scores that were statistically significantlyhigher than the non-intervention control group at 15 and 24months, but outcomeswere not statistically significantly higher for the experimental group when testedat 19, 30, or 36months. Children in the sign training group had receptive languagescores that were statistically significantly higher than the non-intervention controlgroup at 19 and 24months but showed no statistically significant differences at 15,30, and 36months.
A treatment effect size was calculated for the analysis reported in this article byaveraging the results for each outcome variable for the scores that were reported,resulting in a SMDES of 0.33. However, these comparisons are only between thesign training group and the non-intervention control group because Goodwynand her colleagues did not report scores from the verbal training group that wouldhave been the best comparison to determine whether teaching sign language toyoung children results in better developmental outcomes.
The study was rated as ‘fair’ with respect to methodological quality. The omis-sion of scores from the verbal language control group is perplexing. The research-ers offered only the vague explanation that the results of the non-interventioncontrol group and the verbal training control group were not statistically signifi-cantly different and suggested that this provides evidence that ‘training effects’had been controlled for in the sign training group. However, full analysis of theverbal training group comparison at each test interval would have strengthenedthe study findings. Furthermore, the fact that subjects were not randomly assignedto groups means that selection bias is a strong alternative explanation for thedifferences in outcomes between groups. Finally, the way in which outcomedata were collected created moderate threats to internal validity with respect toinstrumentation and testing.
In a prospective cohort study reporting outcomes from a subset of 22 partic-ipants drawn from the longitudinal study and from the original pilot study,Goodwyn and Acredolo (1993) compared onset of the symbolic use of signsand words in infants to determine whether communication with true symbolsoccurs earlier in the gestural modality than the vocal modality. Study resultsrevealed that on average, infants in this study developed symbols aboutthe same time in both modalities, although there was a small tendency forthe onset of gestural symbols to first appear earlier than vocal symbols. Thereported average age when the first symbol appeared was 11.9months forgestures and 12.6months for vocal words, resulting in an average gesturaladvantage of slightly more than 2weeks. Goodwyn and Acredolo stated intheir conclusions that the size of gestural advantage was not as great as hadbeen hypothesized, that there were significant individual differences seen inthe language acquisition patterns among all participants, and that the basicbuilding blocks for language must be in place before symbolizing of any typecan effectively be used for purposeful communication. This finding may fur-ther illustrate the fundamental principle described by Piaget that cognitivedevelopment is at the center of the human organism and language is contin-gent on cognitive development (Russell, 1999). The methodological quality ofthis study was rated as ‘fair ’ because subjects were not randomly assigned togroups and problems about instrumentation and testing perpetuated fromthe original pilot and longitudinal studies. The treatment effect size comparingage at first onset of gestural use with age at first onset of vocal word useresulted in a SMDES of 0.56.
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 487
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Empirical support for claim no. 2: earlier language, vocabulary, literacy skillsIn a cross-sectional study, Daniels (1993) reported receptive vocabulary profi-
ciency of 14 children between the ages of 2 and 13 years. The Peabody PictureVocabulary Test—Revised Edition (PPVT-R) was used to measure vocabularydevelopment in hearing children of deaf parents who reportedly had acquired pro-ficient skills in ASL as preschoolers. With no control group, Daniels used the nor-mative standardization sample from the PPVT-R as the comparative measure.Study participant standard scores were averaged across all 14 children, for a meanscore of 109.57, and a SMDES of 0.64. Daniels used these results as evidence thatASL proficiency accounted for the strong performance on the receptive vocabularyassessment. However, the study was rated as ‘fair–poor’ with respect to methodo-logical quality because there was no explanation for how subjects were recruitedor selected for participation, there is no evidence that data collectors were ‘blind’with regard to study hypotheses, and scores were averaged over a disproportion-ately broad age range. Because there is no comparison group, it is difficult to deter-mine if these children would have performed more poorly if they had not obtainedASL skills as preschoolers and there is no accounting for other educational vari-ables that may have contributed to this single measure of vocabulary proficiency.
In another study, Daniels (1994) reported findings from a longitudinal studythat evaluated receptive vocabulary using the PPVT-R in pre-kindergarten chil-dren who were taught sign language in the classroom compared with childrenof the same age who did not receive sign instruction in the classroom. Participantswere 60 students in four classes, two of which received sign instruction (n= 30)and two classes that did not receive sign language instruction (n= 30). A differentteacher taught the classes using sign language than the teacher who taught thenon-sign classes. Daniels reported the mean scores on the PPVT-R for the twoclasses that received sign language instruction were 94.6 and 92.3, compared withmean scores of 78.9 and 77.6 for the non-sign classes (an SMDES of 1.3). However,the methodological quality of this study was rated as ‘fair–poor’, with severalthreats to internal validity. The absence of baseline group vocabulary test perform-ance scores prior to receiving sign language instruction significantly weaken theconclusion that sign language was the variable that resulted in increased vocabu-lary in the non-sign classrooms. Furthermore, the non-randomized group assign-ment, having a different teacher for the sign classes than the non-sign classes, noevidence that data collectors were blind as to the purpose of the study, and the lackof controls to ensure that teachers in the sign language group were not ‘teaching tothe test’ contributed to concerns of internal test validity.
In a continuation of the longitudinal study described earlier, Daniels (1996)reported follow-up data of vocabulary performance on 19 of the original 30 sub-jects who received sign language instruction in the classroom during their pre-school year. These subjects did not receive additional sign language instructionduring their kindergarten year and were tested using the PPVT-R at the end ofthe kindergarten year. Daniels reported that the standard scores of this grouphad not significantly changed as compared with scores from the original studyobtained at the end of the preschool year. In other words, Daniels concluded thatthere was no decay in vocabulary proficiency over time and the benefit resultingfrom the signing treatment had been maintained. However, unlike the originalstudy, the follow-up study did not include scores from the group that did notreceive sign language instruction for comparison, data were reported for only 19of the original 30 subjects, and there was no accounting for other instructional vari-ables during the school year that may have influenced vocabulary performancethat had nothing to do with sign language instruction. Furthermore, threats to
488 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
internal validity because of non-randomized subject selection from the first studywould have been perpetuated into the follow-up study.
Empirical support for claim no. 3: increased IQ or cognitive skillsOf the 33 websites reviewed in this analysis, 27 sites reported improved IQ as an
outcome of sign language instruction. The only empirical study cited as evidence thatusing sign language as an infant or toddler improves IQ was a summary documentbriefly describing a conference presentation by Acredolo and Goodwyn (2000),which reported follow-up data using the same subjects as those in the originallongitudinal study. Children from the sign training experimental group and thenon-intervention control group participated in cognitive testing at 8 years of age,using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd Edition (WISC-III). However,there was significant attrition from the original data set (data were available for 19 ofthe original 32 subjects in the sign training group and 24 of the original 39 in the non-intervention control group). Children from the verbal training group were notincluded in this study for reasons that are not explained by the researchers. Childrenfrom the sign training group were reported to have higher scores on the WISC-IIIIntelligence Test than children from the non-intervention control group, as well asthose from the general population as reported in the normative WISC-IIIstandardization sample, with an SMDES of 0.80. However, the methodological qual-ity of this study was rated as ‘poor’ for several reasons. Because scores from theverbal training groupwere either not obtained or not reported, statistical comparisonamong all the original study groups is not available. There is no information aboutthe educational training that the children received during the time between theoriginal study and the follow-up study 5–6years later. The non-randomized methodof study group assignment is perpetuated from the original study into the IQ study,with no way of knowing how children were selected and if children from the signtraining groupwere cognitively stronger regardless of sign instruction. Furthermore,the only information about this study was based on a presentation at a professionalconference, the methodology is not clearly represented, and there is no indicationthat the data collectors were ‘blind’ with regard to the purpose of the study or theassignment of subjects to groups. Thus, there aremultiple and serious internal threatsto the validity of the conclusion in this study that teaching sign language to youngchildren results in higher IQ scores at age 8.
Empirical support for claims no. 4, no. 5, and no. 6: reduced frustration, tantrums, oremotional outbursts; increased parent/child bonding; and increased self-esteem, feelings ofsatisfaction, and accomplishment
None of the sources of evidence listed on the websites included empirical sup-port for claims that teaching sign language to hearing infants and toddlers resultsin reduced frustration and tantrums, better parent–child bonding, and increasedfeelings of self-esteem, satisfaction, and accomplishment.
CONCLUSIONS
At least 33 websites are now encouraging parents to teach sign language to theiryoung children with normal hearing. All of these websites claim that children withnormal hearing who are taught sign language will have better developmental out-comes than children who are not taught sign language. Based on anecdotal reportsand testimonials reported on these websites, it appears that many families find
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 489
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
that teaching sign language to their children is an enjoyable experience that theybelieve is beneficial for their child. We know of no evidence that refutes this pointof view, but it is equally important to be clear that there is no credible research evi-dence to support the frequent claims on these websites that teaching sign languageto young children with normal hearing will result in increased IQ, improved lan-guage development, reduced tantrums, improved self-esteem, earlier communica-tion, and increased parent–child bonding.
Because these are all outcomes that any parent would desire for their child, the fre-quent claims on multiple websites and in the popular media that research hasdemonstrated that there are benefits to teaching sign language to young childrenwith normal hearing may well lead to the general public accepting these claims asfact. Surprisingly, even though virtually all of the websites claim that their promisesare based on research (and 82 pieces of evidence were cited as if they were researchstudies), over 90% of these citations were opinion articles or descriptions of productsand only eight were empirical research studies relevant to the benefits of teachingsign language to young children with normal hearing. Furthermore, when the web-sites are read carefully, there was not even an attempt to provide research to supportclaims of reduced tantrums, better self-esteem, and improved parent–child bonding.
Relevant research that was cited to support claims about benefits related toearlier communication, improved language development, and increased IQ wasof only fair quality and not convincing. Research studies by Acredolo, Goodwyn,and Daniels are referenced numerous times in opinion articles or the popularmedia, yet without examination of the study purpose, design, or methodologicalquality. Hence, the conclusions drawn may not accurately represent outcomes par-ents might expect for their child. For example, none of the empirical studies ran-domly assigned subjects to groups, which creates the potential for a biasedparticipant sample. None of the studies described whether parents and childrenwere using sign language in a functional way in their daily activities, and the reli-ance on parent reports of their own child’s progress must be viewed with cautionbecause of the conscious or subconscious implications of a ‘value judgment’ par-ents might feel when reporting their child’s performance, particularly knowingthe researchers’ desired outcome. Daniels (1993, 1994, 1996) claimed to be evaluat-ing language development when the independent variable was a vocabularyassessment, a measure that does not equate to meaningful, cognitively based lan-guage integration. Five of the studies (excluding the case study) either lackedadequate data on comparison control groups or did not provide results for allstudy participants. None of the longitudinal studies adequately accounted forthe myriad of learning variables that could have impacted the development ofyoung children over the course of the study, rendering it difficult to validate therelationship between the independent and dependent variables of these studies
Despite the literature promoting the ease with which babies produce signed ges-tures relative to spoken language, even researchers who advocate signed communi-cation in infants reported that the intentional use of a sign in a truly symbolic fashionis directly impacted by the child’s cognitive development (e.g., memory capacity,object categorization skills, categorization perceptual skills, the understanding thatcommunication is a two-way encounter) (Goodwyn & Acredolo, 1993). Symbolicgesturing does not occur in isolation, and large individual differences in the develop-ment of both the gestural and vocal domains were reported (Acredolo & Goodwyn,1990). Furthermore, parents in these studies were taught sign language byknowledgeable researchers. This is very different from the products advertised forpurchase on the websites, which primarily requires parent self-instruction. Nostudies were available that evaluated outcomes when parents use the DVDs and
490 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
instructional products to teach their child, and no studies were cited that evaluatedoutcomes when children watch the signing videos on television.
In summary, parenting is naturally accompanied by some level of stress in navi-gating the daily demands of work, home, and child-rearing. Many parents experi-ence feelings of guilt and anxiety if they do not implement every strategy orprogram that is promoted to improve the well-being of their child and family. Theclaims made by numerous websites that if young children with normal hearing aretaught to use sign language, then theywill have better language and communicationdevelopment, higher IQs, fewer tantrums, higher self-esteem, and better parent–child bonding needs to be more carefully examined.2 The results of this study donot prove that these claims are false, but they certainly make it clear that we do notyet know from the information presented on the websites analyzed for this articlewhether there are benefits associated with teaching sign language to young childrenwith normal hearing. Before thousands of additional families spend the time andmoney to teach sign language to their young children with normal hearing, add-itional high-quality research should be done. Such research should employ randomassignment of subjects to appropriate comparison groups, collection of relevant out-come data by peoplewho are blind as to the purpose of the experiment, better controlof history, instrumentation and testing threats to internal validity, verification oftreatment implementation, and collection of data until children are at least in earlyelementary school. Until such research is completed, parents should understand thatexisting research cannot be used to reach definitive conclusions and that decisionsabout whether to teach sign language to their young children with normal hearingmust be based on opinions and beliefs but not on research.
Study Limitations
The purpose of this study was to identify all websites that claim there are benefitsfor teaching sign language to young children with normal hearing, identify thespecific claims made for sign language instruction, and evaluate the degree towhich those claims are supported by credible research. In interpreting the conclu-sions of this study, readers should keep the following limitations in mind:
1. Because websites evolve so rapidly, the results reported here represent a staticpoint in time. Because these datawere collected in 2010, otherwebsitesmay havebeen created and information on the websites cited here may have changed.
2. Only websites written in English were included so evidence from websites inother languages are not represented.
3. The content andmethodological quality of all the research studies cited by thesewebsites to support claims about the benefits of teaching sign language toyoung children with normal hearing were judged independently by the threeauthors, and any disagreements were resolved via discussion to produce thedata used in the final analysis. As valuable as it would have been to have kepttrack of the initial coding by each rater so that a measure of inter-rater reliabilitycould have been computed using a technique such as that recommended byHayes and Krippendorff (2007), that was unfortunately not done. Such calcula-tions should be included for similar studies done in the future.
Only information related to teaching sign language to young children with nor-mal hearing was considered for this study. Thus, the conclusions should not be ap-plied to other groups such as older children with normal hearing or children withother disabilities.
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 491
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
APP
ENDIX
ACLAIM
SON
WEBSITESREGARDIN
GBENEFITSOFTEACHIN
GSIGN
LANGUAGETO
YOUNG
CHILDREN
WITH
NORMALHEARIN
G
Increased
ability
tocommun
icate
need
san
dthou
ghts
Increasedab
ility
tocommun
icate
need
san
dthou
ghts
IncreasedIQ
orcogn
itive
skills
Red
uced
frus
tration
andtantrums
Parent–
child
bond
ing
Increasedself-
esteem
and
social
adjustmen
t
www.bab
ies-an
d-sign-lang
uage
.com
XX
XX
XX
www.bab
yseensign.com
XX
XX
www.bab
ysigna
cadem
y.com
XX
XX
Xwww.bab
ysigna
long
.com
XX
XX
Xwww.bab
ysigning
time.com
XX
XX
Xwww.bab
ysignlan
guag
e.ne
tX
XX
Xwww.bab
ysigns.com
XX
XX
XX
www.bab
ysignsrus.com
XX
XX
www.bab
ystrolog
y.com
XX
www.cyb
erpa
rent.com
/ba
by-sign-
lang
uage
XX
XX
XX
www.han
dsp
eak.com
XX
XX
www.kindercareers.com
Xwww.kindersign
s.com
XX
XX
Xwww.learnb
abysignlan
guag
e.com
XX
XX
XX
www.littlesign
ers.com
XX
XX
www.m
ybab
ycan
talk.com
XX
XX
XX
www.m
ybab
yfing
ers.com
XX
XX
www.m
ypreciou
skid.com
XX
XX
www.rmlearning
.com
/ba
bysign
lang
uage
XX
www.sign2
me.com
XX
XX
Xwww.signb
abies.com
XX
XX
www.signing
babies.net
XX
XX
www.signing
4bab
ies.com
XX
XX
XX
(Contin
ues)
492 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
www.signing
baby
.com
XX
XX
XX
www.signing
smart.c
omX
XX
XX
www.signing
time.com
XX
XX
XX
www.signshine
.com
XX
XX
XX
www.signw
ithm
e.com
XX
XX
www.tiny
fing
ers.com
XX
XX
XX
www.tiny
talkersp
ortlan
d.com
XX
XX
XX
www.tiny
talkingh
ands.com
XX
XX
XX
www.to
ddlerinterpreter.com
XX
XX
Xwww.you
rtalking
baby
.com
XX
XX
XNo.
ofweb
sitesmak
ingeach
claim
3329
2727
2219
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 493
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
APP
ENDIX
BCITATIO
NSFO
REACH
SOURCEOFEVID
ENCEFO
RCLAIM
STHATTEACHIN
GSIGN
LANGUAGETO
YOUNG
CHILDREN
IMPR
OVESDEVELOPM
ENTA
LOUTCOMES
Empiricals
tudiesthat
evalua
tedthebe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Acred
olo,
L.&
Goo
dwyn
,S.(1985).Sy
mbo
licge
sturingin
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t:A
case
stud
y.Hum
anDevelopment,28
,40–
49.
Acred
olo,
L.&
Goo
dwyn
,S.
(199
0).Sign
ificanc
eof
symbo
licge
stur
ingforun
derstan
dinglang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.In
R.Vasta
(Ed.),
Ann
alsof
Child
Development,
7,1–
42.Lon
don
:JessicaKingsleyPu
blishe
rs.
Acred
olo,
L.&
Goo
dwyn
,S.(20
00).The
long
-term
impa
ctof
symbo
licge
sturing
during
infanc
yon
IQat
age8.
Pape
rpresen
tedat
theInternationa
lCon
ference
onInfant
Stud
ies.
July
18,2
000:
Brigh
ton,
UK.
Dan
iels,M
.(1993).ASL
asafactor
inacqu
iringEng
lish.
Sign
Lang
uage
Stud
ies,78
,23–
29.
Dan
iels,M
.(1994).The
effect
ofsign
lang
uage
onhe
aringch
ildren’slang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.Com
mun
icationEdu
catio
n,43
,291–2
98.
Dan
iels,M
.(1996).Seeing
lang
uage:T
heeffect
over
timeof
sign
lang
uage
onvo
cabu
lary
deve
lopm
entinearlychild
hood
educ
ation.
Child
Stud
yJournal,26,
193–208.
Goo
dwyn
,S.&
Acred
olo,
L.(1993).Sy
mbo
licge
stureve
rsus
word:
Isthereamod
alityad
vantag
eforon
seto
fsym
bolu
se?Child
Development,64
,688
–701.
Goo
dwyn
,S.,Acred
olo,
L.,&
Brown,
C.(2000).Im
pact
ofsymbo
licge
sturingon
earlylang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.Journalo
fNonverbal
Behavior,24
,81–
103.
Article,boo
k,or
book
chap
tertha
tgav
ean
opinionon
teaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungchild
renbu
tdid
notinclude
empiricalevide
nceno
tpreviou
slyrepo
rted
Acred
olo,
L.&
Goo
dwyn
,S.(1997).Fu
rthe
ring
ourun
derstan
dingof
wha
thu
man
sun
derstan
d.H
uman
Development,40
,25–
31.
Acred
olo,
L.&
Goo
dwyn
,S.(19
98).Enc
ouraging
symbo
licge
stures:Effects
ontherelation
ship
betw
eenge
sture
andsp
eech
.InJ.Iverson&
S.Goldin-
Meadow
s(Eds.)The
nature
andfunc
tion
sof
gesture
inch
ildren’sco
mmun
ication(61–
73).Sa
nFran
cisco:
Jossey
-Bass.
Acred
olo,
L.P.,Goo
dwyn
,S.W
.,Horob
in,K
.D.,&
Emmon
s,Y.
D.(1999).The
sign
san
dsoun
dsof
earlylang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.In
L.B
alter&
C.T
amis-
LeM
onda(Eds.),Child
psycho
logy
:Aha
ndbo
okof
contem
porary
issu
es(116–1
39).New
York:P
sych
olog
yPress.
Allo
t,R.(1994).Gesturale
quivalen
tsof
lang
uage
.Lan
guag
eOrigins
Societyat
UC
Berke
ley.
www.percepp
.com
/ge
sture.htm
Antho
ny,M.(200
2).The
role
ofAmerican
Sign
Lan
guag
ean
d“con
ceptua
lwho
les”
infacilitatinglang
uage
,co
gnition,
and
literacy.
Unp
ublishe
ddoc
toraldissertation.Unive
rsityof
CA,Berke
ley.
Azar,B.
(1998).L
ongbe
fore
they
talk,b
abieskn
owwha
tthe
ywan
ttosay.APA
Mon
itorOnline,29(4);Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,2010,from
http://littlesign
ers.
com/a
rticle8.html
(Contin
ues)
494 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table.(C
ontinu
ed)
Empiricals
tudiesthat
evalua
tedthebe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Brady,
Diane
.(2000,A
ugus
t14).Loo
kwho
’stalkingwiththeirha
nds.Bysign
ingev
eninfantscantellyo
uwha
t’son
theirmind.B
usinessw
eekOnline.
Bus
inessLifestyle.
CBC
New
s(2002,May
26).Ling
uisticability
linkedto
earlyexpo
sure
tolang
uage:C
dn.study.R
etrieved
Septem
ber1
,2010,from
http://w
ww.cbc.ca/
health/story/
2002/0
5/01/lan
g_learn0
20501.html
Cha
rbon
neau
,N.(2002).Health
scoutnew
s.Retriev
edMay
2,2011
from
Yaho
oHealth:
http://classicw
eb.archive
.org/web
/20020126214900/he
alth.yah
oo.
com/search
/he
althne
ws
Chicag
oTribun
e(200
0,Fe
brua
ry27
).Ta
lkto
theha
nd:B
abies’sign
lang
uag
e‘tells’p
aren
tswha
tthe
ywan
t.Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://
littlesigne
rs.com
/article4.htm
lCrompton
,S.(20
00,O
ctob
er10
).Can
teachingsign
lang
uage
toba
bies
help
theirdev
elop
men
t?Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://littlesigne
rs.
com/article1.htm
lDan
iels,M
.(2001).Dan
cing
withwords:Sign
ingforhe
aringch
ildren’sliteracy.
Westport,CT:
Berginan
dGarve
y.Edelson,
E.(20
02,D
ecem
ber5).Infan
tbrain
mak
essens
eof
lang
uage
.Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://www.healths
cout.com
/template.asp
?pa
ge=ne
wsd
etail&
ap=1&
id=51
0662
Edmun
ds,M.,&
Krupinski,D
.(n.d.).
Using
sign
lang
uage
andfing
ersp
ellin
gto
facilitateearlyliteracy.Retriev
edSeptem
ber2,
2010,from
http://www.
pbs.org/
teache
rs/earlychildho
od/articles/sign
lang
uage
.htm
lFa
ckelman
n,K.(2000,July5).L
ookwho
’stalkingwithge
stures.R
etriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article13.html
Glazer,S.
(200
1,March
13).Is
itasign
?Bab
ieswithno
rmal
hearingarebe
ingtaug
htsign
lang
uage
bypa
rents
hopingto
prod
ucealearning
boostor
tantrum
relie
f.Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article15.html
Goo
d.L
.,Fe
ekes,J.,Sh
awd,B
.(19
93/19
94).Let
your
fing
ersdothetalking,
hand
s-on
lang
uag
elearning
throug
hsign
ing.
Child
hood
Education
,81–
83.
Goo
dwyn
,S.(n.d.)Bab
yge
stures.M
SNBC
Today
Show
.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/ba
by_g
estures.html
Gordon
,D.(200
1,Se
ptem
ber27
).Anad
ditiona
lway
toco
mmun
icate.
Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://www.in
telih
ealth.com/IH
/ihtIH/
WSIHW00
0/33
24/29
698.html#2.
Dr.Green
e,Bab
ysign
lang
uage
.Drgreen
e.com
Green
,K.(2002).Bab
ysign
lang
uage
.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://www.preciou
skids.org/
adop
t/articles/ba
bysign
.htm
lHoc
hberg,
L.(199
7,May
29).Child’s
play.Retriev
edMay
2,20
11from
PBSOnlineFo
cus:
http://www.pbs.org/ne
wsh
our/
bb/yo
uth/
jan-june
97/
brain_5
-29.html
Jaworski,M.(2000).Sign
sof
intellige
ntlife.
Family
Circle,
Octob
er3,
2000,p
.14.
Kok
ette,S
.(1995).Hearing
stud
ents,signlang
uage
andmus
ic:A
valuab
lecombina
tion
.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://www.tiny
fing
ers.com/
articlesignsan
dmus
ic.htm
l
(Contin
ues)
(Con
tinu
ed)
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 495
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table.(C
ontinu
ed)
Empiricals
tudiesthat
evalua
tedthebe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Kok
ette,S.(1995).Sign
lang
uage
:The
bestsecond
lang
uage
?Retriev
edSeptem
ber2,2010,from
http://au
stralia
nbab
yhan
ds.com/sign
-lan
guag
e-the-be
st-
second
-lan
guag
e.html
Lad
ino,
E.(20
03).5reason
swhy
parents
love
sign
ingwithba
bies.W
ashing
tonFa
milies
Mag
azine.
Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://www.
tiny
fing
ers.com/article5reason
sMoo
re,B.,Acred
olo,
L.,&
Goo
dwyn
,S.
(2001).Sy
mbo
licge
sturingan
djointattention:
Partne
rsin
facilitatingve
rbal
dev
elop
men
t.Pa
perat
Bienn
ial
Meeting
sof
SocietyforResearchin
Child
Dev.
The
Nan
doTimes
(2002,
Janu
ary4).S
tudyexam
ines
flue
ncyin
lang
uage
.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article17.html
The
Ottaw
aCitizen
(1999,
Februa
ry26).A
new
lang
uage
forba
by.R
etriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article3.htm
lPa
rentsMag
azine(2003).T
hene
wba
bytalk.R
etriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://www.tiny
fing
ers.com/articlen
ewba
bytalk.htm
lPa
ul,P.
(200
6,Janu
ary8).Gettingsh
arp:Wan
tabrainierba
by?TimeMag
azine.
Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber2,
2010
,from
http://www.tim
e.com/time/
mag
azine/
article/
0,91
71,114
7180
-1,00.html
Rob
erts,B
.(n.d.).
Com
mun
icatingwithyo
urba
by.A
dop
tive
families
ofAmericaAdop
tion
Mag
azine.Retriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://www.
adop
ting.org/
Adop
tive
Families/Com
municating
.htm
lRob
ertson
,S.(2007).Using
sign
tofacilitateoral
lang
uage
:Buildingacase
withpa
rents.Retriev
edSeptem
ber2,2010,from
http://www.spe
echp
atho
logy
.com/articles/article_detail.a
sp?article_id=315
Sanc
hez,
K.(2001,M
arch
12).Loo
kwho
’stalkingin
sign
lang
uage
.Web
MD
Med
ical
New
s.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article16.html
Schw
arz,
J.(200
2,June4).Hea
ring
infantssh
owpreferen
ceforsign
lang
uage
over
pantom
ime.
Retriev
edSe
ptembe
r1,
2010
,from
http://www.
washington
.edu/ne
wsroo
m/ne
ws/
2002
arch
ive/
06-02a
rchive
/k0
6040
2.html
Snod
don
,Kristin.S
ign,
baby,sign!
Penn
StateDep
artm
entof
Speech
Com
mun
icationArticle
inWorld
Federationof
DeafNew
s,May
2000,V
ol.1
3No.1
http://sp
eech
comm.la
.psu
.edu/
facu
lty/
dan
iels_article.htm
lTho
mas,L
.(2000).Hearing
orno
t:Sign
withyo
urba
by.R
etriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://www.tiny
fing
ers.com/articleh
earing
orno
t.htm
lUCDav
isNew
s(199
9,March
31).“B
abysign
s”favo
rkids’
intelle
ctual
grow
thin
scho
ol.R
etriev
edSe
ptem
ber1,
2010
,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article2
.htm
lWalters,L
.S.(1998,A
pril23).Beforethey
talk,the
ycan‘sign.’T
heChristian
Scienc
eMon
itor.R
etriev
edSeptem
ber1,
2010,from
http://littlesigne
rs.com
/article9.htm
lWha
ley,K.(1999).Teaching
infantsto
usesign
lang
uage.O
hioStateUniversity.R
etrieved
Februa
ry18,2009from
www.new
swise.com/p
/articles/view
/10852/
White,D
.(1999,A
ugus
t9).Bab
iestaug
htsign
lang
uage
oftenah
eadof
theirpe
erslateron
.Retriev
edSeptem
ber1,2010,from
http://www.seattlepi.com
/lifestyle/storya
1.shtm
l
(Contin
ues)
(Con
tinu
ed)
496 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table.(C
ontinu
ed)
Empiricals
tudiesthat
evalua
tedthebe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Articlesor
empiricalstudieson
atopicno
trelatedto
thebe
nefits
claimed
onsign
lang
uage
web
sites
BBC
New
s(200
0,Septem
ber29).Bab
ies‘can
learn’
inthewom
b.Retriev
edSeptem
ber2,
2010,from
http://ne
ws.bb
c.co.uk/
2/hi/he
alth/94
7001.stm
Bon
villian
,J.,Cate,
S.,W
eber,W
.,&
Folven
,R.(19
88).Early
letter
reco
gnition,letterna
mingan
dread
ingskillsin
asign
ingan
dsp
eaking
child
.Sign
Lang
uage
Stud
ies,60
,271
–294
.Cole,K.(2002,N
ovem
ber7).Infan
tsus
etheirow
nna
meto
recogn
izeothe
rwordsin
flue
ntsp
eech
.BrownUnive
rsityNew
sService.Retriev
edSeptem
ber
1,2010,from
http://www.brown.ed
u/Administration/
New
s_Bureau/
2002-03/
02-032.htm
lDan
iels,M
.(1994).Non
verbal
lang
uage
andman
ualspe
ech.
The
Speech
Com
mun
icationAnn
ual,8,
51–6
0.Dan
iels,M
.(1996).Prev
ious
lymaske
dconc
epts:T
hecommun
icativerole
oflang
uage
indeafan
dhe
aringcu
ltures.O
hioSp
eech
Journal,34
,1–1
5.Dan
iels,M
.(2005).Deafpresiden
tno
wan
dAmerican
sign
lang
uage
:Seeingrhetoric.P
ennsylva
niaCom
mun
icationAssociation
Ann
ual,53.
Griffith,P
.L.(19
85).Mod
e-sw
itch
ingan
dmod
e-find
ingin
ahe
aringch
ildof
deafpa
rents.Sign
Lang
uage
Stud
ies,48
,195
–222.
Hild
ebrand
t,(2002).H
earing
infantspreferen
ceforsign
lang
uage
over
pantom
ime.
Unive
rsityof
Washing
ton.
Www.eurek
alert.o
rg/pu
b_releases/2002-
06/uo
w-his060402.php
Lindert,R.(20
01).Hea
ring
families
withdea
fchildren:
Lingu
istican
dco
mmun
icativeaspe
ctsof
American
Sign
Lan
guag
edev
elop
men
t.Unp
ublishe
ddoc
torald
issertation.U
nive
rsityof
CA,B
erke
ley.
Wilb
ur,R
.and
Jone
s,M.(1974).So
measpe
ctsof
theacqu
isitionof
American
Sign
Lan
guag
ean
dEng
lishby
threehe
aringch
ildrenof
deafpa
rents.In
La
Galy,
Fox,
&Bruck
(Eds.),Pa
pers
from
theTenthReg
iona
lMeeting
oftheChicago
Lingu
isticSo
ciety,
742–749.
Description
sof
sign
lang
uage
training
prog
ramsforscho
ol-age
dch
ildren
Christen
sen,
K.(198
4).Readingsign
lang
uage
—Use
ofavisu
al-gesturalmod
eto
supp
lemen
tread
ingacqu
isition.
Claremon
tReadingCon
ferenc
eYe
arbo
ok.
Dan
iels,M
.(2001).Sign
lang
uage
adva
ntag
e.Sign
Lang
uage
Stud
ies,2(1),5
–19.
Dan
iels,M
.(2002).Readingsign
s:A
way
toprom
oteearlych
ildho
odliteracy.
Com
mun
icationTeacher,16(2),32
–38.
Dan
iels,M
.(2003).Using
asign
edlang
uage
asasecond
lang
uage
forkind
erga
rten
stud
ents.C
hild
Stud
yJournal,33(1),53
–70.
Dan
iels,M
.(2004).Hap
pyha
nds:The
effect
ofASL
onhe
aringch
ildren’sliteracy.
Reading
ResearchandInstruction,
44(1),86
–100.
Felzer,L
.(1998).A
multisensoryread
ingprog
ram
that
really
works.T
eachingandChang
e,5(2),1
69–1
83.
Feltzer,L.M
BRReadingProg
ram:R
esearchon
how
sign
inghe
lpshe
aringch
ildrenlearnto
read
.www.csu
pomon
a.ed
u/~ap
felzer/mbr/research
.htm
l.Hafer,J.(1986).Sign
ingforread
ingsu
ccess.Washing
tonD.C.G
allaud
etUnive
rsityPress.
(Contin
ues)
(Con
tinu
ed)
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 497
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Table.(C
ontinu
ed)
Empiricals
tudiesthat
evalua
tedthebe
nefits
ofteaching
sign
lang
uage
toyo
ungch
ildrenwithno
rmal
hearing
Schu
nk,H
.A.(1999).The
effect
ofsing
ingpa
ired
withsign
ingon
receptivevo
cabu
lary
skillsof
elem
entary
ESL
stud
ents.JournalofMusicTherapy,3
6(2),
110–
124.
Slob
in,D
.,Hoiting
,N.,Kun
tze,
M.,Lindert,R.,Weinb
erg,
A.,Py
ers,
J.,A
ntho
ny,
M.,Biederman
,Y.,&
Thu
man
n,H.(200
3).A
cogn
itive/
func
tion
alpe
rspe
ctiveon
theacqu
isition
of“classifiers.”In
K.E
mmorey
(Ed.),Pe
rspe
ctives
onclassifier
construc
tions
insign
lang
uages.La
wrenceErlbau
m.
Wils
on,R.,Te
ague,
J.,&
Teag
ue,
M.(198
5).The
useof
sign
ingan
dfing
ersp
ellin
gto
improv
esp
ellin
gpe
rforman
cewithhe
aringch
ildren.
Reading
Psychology,
4,26
7–27
3.
Sign
lang
uage
instructiona
lboo
ks
Acred
olo,
Goo
dwyn
,Abram
s(2002).B
abysign
s:How
totalk
withyo
urba
bybe
fore
your
baby
cantalk.M
cGraw-H
illPu
blishing
.Antho
nyan
dLindert.(2005).S
igning
smartwithba
bies
andtoddlers.N
ewYo
rk:S
t.Martin’sPress.
Dye
r,L.(2003).Loo
kwho
’stalking.
Meadow
broo
kPress.
Garcia,
Joseph
.(1994).To
ddlertalk.w
ww.sign2
me.com
Empiricals
tudiesof
how
child
renna
turally
acqu
irege
stures
butno
tstud
iesof
thebe
nefits
ofsign
lang
uage
instruction
Acred
olo&
Goo
dwyn
(1988).S
ymbo
licge
sturingin
norm
alinfants.Child
Development,59
,450–4
66.
Iverson,
J.M.,&
Goldin-M
eadow
,S.(2005).Gesturespa
vetheway
forlang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.American
Psychological
Society,
16(5),367–
371.
Vallotton
,C.(2008).Sign
sof
emotion:
Wha
tcanprev
erba
lchildren“say
”ab
outinternal
states?Infant
MentalH
ealth
Journal,29(3),234–258.
Articlesthat
couldno
tbe
located
Antho
ny,M
.,&
Lindert,R.N
ationa
lStudyof
Sign
ingSm
artChildren.
http://www.signing
smart.c
om/research
.htm
lGeary,A
llison.
(2004).Z
eroto
threepo
sitive
sign
ssign
lang
uage
prom
otes
earlycommun
ication.
TulsaKids.
Klio
nsky
,L.C
.(1999,M
arch
31).Bab
ysign
sfavo
rkids’intelle
ctua
lgrowth
inscho
ol.N
ewsUC
Dav
is.
Koe
hler,L
.,&
Loy
d,L
.(19
86).Using
fing
ersp
ellin
g/man
ual
sign
sto
facilitateread
ingan
dsp
ellin
g.Biennial
conferen
ceof
theinternationa
lsoc
iety
for
augm
entative
andalternativecommunication
.Simmon
s,LeahJ.(M
arch
9,2003).Bab
ytalk:S
igning
infantsgive
who
lene
wmeaning
toba
bytalk.A
rdmoreite
(Con
tinu
ed)
498 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
APP
ENDIX
CCODIN
GSH
EETFO
REMPIRIC
ALRESE
ARCH
ARTIC
LES
________________________
Date
______________________________________________
_______________________________
Autho
rs/Ye
ar
1.Stud
yID
2.ESno
.3.
Year
ofPu
blication
SubjectCha
racteristics
fortheTreatm
entGroup
4.Age
inmon
ths
5.%
Male
6.SE
S(1=low,2
=med
ium,3
=high
,4=mixed
)defi
ned?
7.Abilityleve
l(1=gifted
,2=no
rmal,3
=sp
eciale
duc
ation,
4=combina
tion
)8.
Samplesize
9.Is
sign
lang
uage
used
asregu
larmod
eof
commun
icationin
theho
me?
(1=no
,2=ye
s,3=ye
s,siblings,4
=ye
s,pa
rents/
siblings)
10.H
earing
status
(1=no
rmal,2
=assu
med
norm
al,3
=he
aringloss)
11.T
each
erexpe
rien
ceof
sign
lang
uage
(1=no
ne,2
=some,
3=expe
rt)
Treatm
ent
13.D
urationof
treatm
entin
weeks
14.H
ours
perweekof
directsign
lang
uage
instruction
15.H
ours
perweekus
ingsign
lang
uage
in‘in
structiona
l’16.H
owwas
thesign
lang
uage
taug
ht?(1=pa
rent/ch
ild,2
=profession
al/ch
ild,3
=video
,4=classroo
m–teach
er/ch
ild,5
=othe
r:____________)
17.S
ignlang
uage
system
(1=ASL
,2=sign
edEng
lish,
3=ge
stures
unique
tostud
y,4=othe
r)
(Contin
ues)
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 499
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Dep
enden
tva
riab
le18.C
onstruct
ofinterest
1=Earlie
rab
ility
tocommun
icatene
eds,wan
ts,tho
ughts
2=Earlie
rlang
uage
,vocab
ulary,
literacyskills
3=IncreasedIQ
4=Red
uced
frus
tration/
tantrums(positiveES=reduc
edfrus
tration)
5=Increasedpa
rent–child
bond
ing
6=Self-esteem,satisfaction/
socially
adjusted
19.T
imeaftertreatm
entcompleted
,dep
enden
tva
riab
lemeasu
redin
mon
ths
20.T
ypeof
assessmen
t(1=stan
dardized
test,2
=cu
stom
mad
e,3=pa
rent
rating
,4=na
turalo
bserva
tion
,5=othe
r)21.G
eneral
valid
ityof
outcom
escores
(1=go
od,2
=fair,
3=po
or)
22.M
etho
dof
assign
ingsu
bjects
totreatm
ents
(1=rand
om,2
=match
ing,
3=no
nran
dom
,con
venien
ce,4
=pre/
post)
23.E
xperim
entalu
nits
(1=class,2=individua
l,3=sm
allg
roup
)24.T
hreats
tointernal
valid
ity(0=no
ne,1
=minor,2
=mod
erate,
3=major)
History
Maturation
Reg
ression
Selection
Instrumen
tation
Testing
Mortality
Inap
prop
riatestatisticalp
rocedure
Other
(spe
cify)
21.G
eneral
index
ofva
lidityforthis
effect
size
(1–5
;1be
st,5
worst)
Results
SMDES(referen
cegrou
p?__________________)
Other’sconc
lusion
s(five
-point
scale:
1=be
neficial
to5=detrimen
tal)
500 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Notes
1. Because websites evolve rapidly, some changes may have occurred because thetime this analysis was completed.
2. The review of claims made and evidence cited on websites did not include arti-cles or information relative to the benefits of teaching sign language to childrenwith hearing loss, developmental delays, or other disabilities. The needs of suchchildren are complex and are not addressed by the information in this article.
REFERENCES
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1985). Symbolic gesturing in language development: A casestudy. Human Development, 28, 40–49.
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Develop-ment, 59, 450–466.
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1990). Sign language in babies: The significance of symbolicgesturing for understanding language development. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of ChildDevelopment, 7 (pp. 1–42). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Acredolo, L., &Goodwyn, S. (1998). Encouraging symbolic gestures: Effects on the relationshipbetween gesture and speech. In J. Iverson, & S. Goldin-Meadows (Eds.), The nature and func-tions of gesture in children’s communication (pp. 61–73). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (2000). The long-term impact of symbolic gesturing duringinfancy on IQ at age 8. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies.July 18, 2000: Brighton, UK.
Anthony and Lindert. (2005). Signing smart with babies and toddlers. New York: St. Martin’sPress.
Azar, B. (1998). Long before they talk, babies knowwhat they want to say. APAMonitor On-line, 29(4); Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://littlesigners.com/article8.html
Barr, R., & Linebarger, D. L. (2010). Special issue on the content and context of early mediaexposure. Infant and Child Development, 19, 553–556.
Bonvillian, J., Cate, S., Weber, W., & Folven, R. (1988). Early letter recognition, letter namingand reading skills in a signing and speaking child. Sign Language Studies, 60, 271–294.
Coplan, J. (1995). Normal speech and language development: An overview. Pediatrics in Re-view, 16, 91–100.
Daniels, M. (1993). ASL as a factor in acquiring English. Sign Language Studies, 78, 23–29.Daniels, M. (1994). The effect of sign language on hearing children’s language development.Communication Education, 43, 291–298.
Daniels, M. (1996). Seeing language: The effect over time of sign language on vocabulary de-velopment in early childhood education. Child Study Journal, 26, 193–208.
Daniels, M. (2004). Happy hands: The effect of ASL on hearing children’s literacy. ReadingResearch and Instruction, 44(1), 86–100.
Felzer, L. (1998). A multisensory reading program that really works. Teaching and Change,5(2), 169–183.
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., et al. (1993). TheMacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI). San Diego, CA: Singular Publish-ing Group, Inc.
Fenstermacher, S. K., Barr, R., Salerno, K., Garcia, A., Shwery, C. E., Calvert, S. K., et al.(2010). Infant-directed media: An analysis of product information and claims. Infant andChild Development, 19, 557–576.
Gardner, M. F. (1985). Receptive and expressive one-word picture vocabulary test. Novato, CA:Academic Therapy Publications.
Goodwyn, S., & Acredolo, L. (1993). Symbolic gesture versus word: Is there a modality ad-vantage for onset of symbol use? Child Development, 64, 688–701.
Goodwyn, S., Acredolo, L., & Brown, C. (2000). Impact of symbolic gesturing on early lan-guage development. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(2), 81–103.
Baby Sign Language Website Claims 501
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Griffith, P. L. (1985). Mode-switching and mode-finding in a hearing child of deaf parents.Sign Language Studies, 48, 195–222.
Hayes, A. F. & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measurefor coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
Hedrick, D. L., Prather, E. M., & Tobin, A. R. (1984). Sequenced inventory of communication de-velopment (Revised edition). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gestures paves the way for language develop-ment. American Psychological Society, 16(5), 367–371.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Re-search, 4(1), 8–18.
Kent, R. D. (1999). Motor control: Neurophysiology and functional development. In A. Car-uso, & E. Strand (Eds.), Clinical management of motor speech disorders in children. New York:Theime Medical Publishers, Inc.
Ladino, E. (2003). 5 reasons why parents love signing with babies. Washington FamiliesMagazine. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.tinyfingers.com/article5reasons
Luze, G. J., Linebarger, D. L., Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Walker, D., Leitschuh, C., et al.(2001). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the expressive communica-tion of infants and toddlers. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 383–406.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Re-search in Child Development, 38(1–2), 1–135.
Oller, J., Jr., Oller, S., & Badon, L. (2006). Milestones: Normal speech and language developmentacross the lifespan. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.
Rescorla, L. (1980). Overextension in early language development. Journal of Child Language,5, 321–335.
Russell, J. (1999). Cognitive development as an executive process—in part: A homeopathicdose of Piaget. Developmental Science, 2(3), 247–295.
Sanchez, K. (2001). Look who’s talking in sign language. WebMD Medical News. RetrievedSeptember 1, 2010, from http://littlesigners.com/article16.html
Snoddon, K. (2000). Sign, baby, sign! Penn State Department of Speech Communication. WorldFederation of Deaf News, 13(1). http://speechcomm.la.psu.edu/faculty/daniels_article.html
Vaala, S. E., Linebarger, D. L., Fenstermacher, S. K., Tedone, A., Brey, E., Barr, R., et al. (2010).Content analysis of language-promoting teaching strategies used in infant-directedmedia. Infant and Child Development, 19, 628–648.
Vallotton, C. (2008). Signs of emotion: What can preverbal children “say” about internalstates? Infant Mental Health Journal, 29(3), 234–258.
502 L. H. Nelson et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 21: 474–502 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/icd
Copyright of Infant & Child Development is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.