A friend of mine sent me a very interesting article about a research study on the mental health of deaf adolescents resulting from communication mode used with the child’s mother:
Hearing mothers and their deaf children: the relationship between early, ongoing mode match and subsequent mental health functioning in adolescence.
Note this explanation of the communication mode designations from the full article:
“The three groups are auditory/oral (A/O), sign match (SM), and sign mismatch (SMM). The SM group was defined as those youth who began signing relatively early (i.e., before age five) with their mothers and continued to sign into adolescence. The SMM group was comprised of youth who either did not start using sign early in their development and/or did not have mothers who signed.”
Wallis D, Musselman C, MacKay S.
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, The Canadian Hearing Society. dwallis@oise.utoronto.ca
In the few studies that have been conducted, researchers have typically found that deaf adolescents have more mental health difficulties than their hearing peers and that, within the deaf groups, those who use spoken language have better mental health functioning than those who use sign language. This study investigated the hypotheses that mental health functioning in adolescence is related to an early and consistent mode match between mother and child rather than to the child’s use of speech or sign itself. Using a large existing 15-year longitudinal database on children and adolescents with severe and profound deafness, 57 adolescents of hearing parents were identified for whom data on language experience (the child’s and the mother’s) and mental health functioning (from a culturally and linguistically adapted form of the Achenbach Youth Self Report) was available. Three groups were identified: auditory/oral (A/O), sign match (SM), and sign mismatch (SMM). As hypothesized, no significant difference in mental health functioning was found between the A/O and SM groups, but a significant difference was found favoring a combined A/O and SM group over the SMM group. These results support the notion of the importance of an early and consistent mode match between deaf children and hearing mothers, regardless of communication modality.
To access the full research, click here.
Interesting study - I think this confirms a lot of my suspicions about families who are unable (most likely unwilling) to ‘acquire’ their child’s language. What scares me is that it’s pretty uncommon to find parents who are able/willing to fully immerse themselves in ASL.
On a more personal note, my father has had great difficulties with sign language, even with SEE, which is easier to acquire than ASL. It was not for the lack of effort. He just never was a ‘language’ person - he even has difficulties with English. I’m grateful that I have the ability to communicate with him orally because I think our relationship (and probably my mental/emotional health) with him would have suffered. Of course, my mother picked up on ASL quite quickly and still uses it sometimes. I don’t think it’s fair to always ‘blame’ the parents for communication mismatch, some people cannot acquire sign language easily or at all. It seems to be a common misconception that ASL is an easy language to learn - it is not. Even supposedly fluent people (i.e. interpreters) botch the language on a regular basis.
I guess my basic point is that it is *easier* for parents to connect with their children via oral communication, but of course, this is not, by any means, the only way. It should be up to the family to figure out what mode would work best for THEM and their individual circumstances.
Comment by ASL/CI Anonymous — May 15, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
If you read through the entire study, it states that an exception were children who were deaf of deaf. I think that on thing this study illustrates is that it is easiest for parents to provide their children fluency in a language in which they themselves are fluent and that, when this occurs, communication between parent and child is easiest. However, in the past it was not so easy for the children to acquire spoken English, whereas now it is. Thus, I would think that the mental health issues spoken of in this article will diminish.
Comment by Melissa — May 15, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Is fluency the catalyst? I’d think whatever mode of communication is used, both the mother and child need to be able to use it at the same level or close. I find this study very interesting. I know a person who’s mom does not communicate with her child in a way that the child communicates. i.e. child originally was oral but had difficulties due to not being able to hear at all. The mother refuses to sign. The child grew up with mental health issues. I’m seeing more of the same with many deaf individuals with communication issues with their mothers growing up.
So, it does not really signify the need for both to be fluent in a mode, other than, it would be preferred that the mother and the child utilizes the same mode of communication, fluent or not (as long as both are at or about the same level)?
Comment by CANDY — May 15, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
As ASL/CI Anonymous pointed out, though, it’s not always easy for adults to learn another language and, in particular, to become fluent. What would happen if a child had two parents who were as ASL/CI Anonymous described her father? Sometimes, even the most well intentioned parents simply cannot master another language, and by later preschool to early elementary age, fluency is necessary for the parent. I talked about everything with my girls then, and I never had to stop and think about how to express something because I was using my first language.
Comment by Melissa — May 15, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
It goes further than simple fluency, I think. No matter what the language modality or the skill, it is the heartfelt committment of the parent toward emotionally connecting with their child.
I have seen Deaf-Blind children connect well to nonsigning parents because they found touch to communicate love, acceptance, and guidance. An example: a little boy pouting because he would not eat his vegeable and therefore couldn’t have dessert. Repeatedly touching his hand to the veggie met with resistance. Sulk. Then the father, a farmer by trade, put his butter knife on the child’s arm and spread a bit of butter. The child smiled, things were okay despite the difference of opinion. In later life the father and child were able to communicate by large writing of single words, but importantly the essentials of relationship had been firmly established. (The child later went to Gallaudet and earned a Master’s in counseling.)
It isn’t what the report said, but its implications: the effectiveness of whatever modality is used and its consistent application.
Comment by Dianrez — May 15, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
It can’t just be the same language (without fluency). For full intellectual development it has to be complex language spoken to the child in early years– before 2, according to other research. Not that a child speaks in that complexity of adults, but the research shows the language spoken TO them must be complex because they are taking it all in and learning from it. If it’s the same but not complex (say, 200 nouns and a few verbs), the child’s development will not be what it could have been. Even a thousand word vocabulary would be lacking.
In the beginning, the article also mentioned that those with spoken language had higher mental health, in general. I believe this may be due to their ability to communicate with those outside of the deaf population. (This is not to say that they can’t use sign, but that they were capable of spoken language).
In my opinion, most parents have a heartfelt desire to communicate with their children, and honestly want to share their lives. Without that, regardless of deafness or anything else, they won’t have a good relationship or good mental health. But this study was specifically about modes of communication, which are easier when they are the same between mother and child. This has wide implications for hearing families who have deaf children. No one suggests that parents not try to develop a bond in whatever manner is necessary. But the method used IS clearly important, and for many kids that is an auditory/oral one because they can establish complex language with their parents in that method.
Comment by Amy — May 15, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
I am kinda skeptical about the questionable research methods within this non-longtitude study (not really longtitude at all) on the mental state of deaf youngsters based on their communication interaction with mothers.
I rather see the proof of video recordings within the research study participants to see for myself how they respond to questions or how the researchers conduct their studies. The issue of confidentiality and personal privacy is another thing to prevent me from seeing the research participants.
I basically do not buy this research. Too many research findings in general, come with inaccuracies.
For example, the 1968 Presidential Commission on ########### commissioned by Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). This commission really made a joke out of their own findings without broadening their research subjects. All the research subjects were white college male students, not various socioeconomic and educational and ethnic backgrounds of both sexes.
The final answers from the very same presidential commission said that the frequent exposures to hard-core ########### don’t affect anyone at all. Huh? What about the undereducated individuals from rural areas how they respond to the presence of hard-core ###########?
I somewhat agreed that the sex crimes would be more likely reduced within the presence of ###########.
I agree with Dianrez about questions raised about the methodology being applied within this research study on the mental implication of deaf youngsters due to their linguistic and communication modes.
Thanks to Dianrez for sharing her observation with deaf-blind youngsters being more responsive to non-signing parents. How interesting! Thanks, Rachel for posting this research study.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Comment by RLM — May 15, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
The filtered word is p o r n g r a p h y which I have to outsmart the Nanny Net installed within the business center’s software program by spacing out the enclosed word. Okay?
RLM
Comment by RLM — May 15, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
I think Amy hit the nail on the head - basic communication is not quite enough. How can one develop a strong and stable relationship with their family without the ability to converse on a deeper level? Of course, it is possible to obtain intellectual development without deep interaction with your family, but that is not a basis for a strong family. Really, what most parents want is to talk to their children, have the opportunity to imbue their values into their children and see them grow as people. Just communicating through touch cannot do that.
The only thing I would change about Amy post is the use of the word spoken - ASL is quite complex and it can become a good foundation of familial communication. However, the point is that most hearing parents would want to use spoken language because they are able to fully express themselves in that language.
Comment by ASL/CI Anonymous — May 15, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
When my son was in an infant program back in 1995, there was another little girl in the program. The family was Indian and their first language was Urdu. The school told the parents that they must communicate with their deaf child in English. The mother’s English was very poor. How could this child acquire a language well enough to use if their first language model was so poor?
At CU Boulder, they now advise parents whose L1 is NOT English, to use their first language (be it Spanish, German, or Tagalog) with their deaf children so the child has a whole fluent example of one language. This would correlate with the study that Rachel posted. I know that there were conversations with my son which were difficult because I had to stop to look up signs. Communication is halting and difficult when the adult is using a language they are not fluent in to communicate with their child. Having a language level that is about the same as the child’s rarely allows the child to grow and expand in that language. An adult conversing with a child must have a higher level of language than the child in order for the child to acquire more and more language skills.
Comment by MomofBiCi — May 16, 2008 @ 9:13 am
I think a parent/parents having a higher level of language than the child is always optimal, however, like you pointed out, not always possible in English. My parents were immigrant themselves and my mother learned english the same time that i did. What made the difference for me was that I was enrolled in a pre-K program when I was 4 months old for intensive language therapy, and now I don’t have any major English issues.
my point is, there are ways around the language barrier such as early schooling. However, that requires a lot of trust on the parent’s side - trusting the teachers to be capable teachers of language.
Comment by ASL/CI Anonymous — May 16, 2008 @ 12:37 pm