Repair Behaviors Used by Children With Hearing Loss

The purpose of this study was to compare the repair behaviors used by children with hearing loss, between 4 and 9 years of age, as they responded to a stacked sequence of requests for clarification during two different tasks (art and game task). Ten of the 20 subjects were taught a communication strategy (showing) before the study and 10 of the subjects were not taught the strategy. The samples collected during the tasks were transcribed and the children's post-question responses were classified into one of nine categories of repair strategies. An analysis of the data indicated no statistically significant differences in the proportions of repair behaviors used by the two groups as a function of the different tasks. There was, however, a statistically significant difference in the proportion of repair behaviors used by all children according to the level of the stacked sequence of requests for clarification. The children used more explicit repair behaviors when asked questions that requested more information. Finally, children in the group who were taught the "showing" repair behavior before the study showed a trend toward using this repair behavior more frequently than the children who were not taught the strategy. As children with hearing loss have greater difficulties learning and using a variety of repair behaviors, it may be necessary to not only teach different repair behaviors, but also the skills necessary to choose the most appropriate repair behavior across different contexts.

KEY WORDS: aural rehabilitation, communication breakdown, repair strategies, stacked sequence of requests, children with hearing loss

Submitted on July 30, 1993
Accepted on November 4, 1994

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. R. Easterbrooks Knowledge and Skills for Teachers of Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Advanced Set Development Communication Disorders Quarterly, November 1, 2008; 30(1): 37 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]