Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Early Intervention
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WAXMAN, R. P.
Right arrow Articles by POISSON, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reciprocity, Responsiveness, and Timing in Interactions Between Mothers and Deaf and Hearing Children

ROBYN P. WAXMAN

The American University

PATRICIA E. SPENCER

Gallaudet University

SUSAN S. POISSON

The Reginald Lourie Center for Infants and Young Children

The Greenspan-Lieberman Observational System-Revised (GLOS-R; Greenspan & Lieberman, 1980) was used to describe characteristics of dyadic interactions between hearing mothers and hearing toddlers (HH), deaf mothers and deaf toddlers (DD), and hearing mothers and deaf toddlers (HD). Deaf mothers produced fewer interactive behaviors than hearing mothers, apparently in order to accommodate infants' visual attention needs. DD and HD children were more likely than hearing children to react in a manner initially indicated by GLOS-R coding to be anticontingent. Additional analysis indicated this was a misinterpretation for DD, for whom this reflected adaptive attentional patterns. This adaptive pattern did not account for anticontingency among HD children. Assessment instruments require some modifications and results must be interpreted with caution when applied to dyads of deaf mothers and children.

Journal of Early Intervention, Vol. 20, No. 4, 341-355 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/105381519602000407
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Communication Disorders QuarterlyHome page
C. J. Cress, L. Moskal, and A. Hoffmann
Parent Directiveness in Free Play With Young Children With Physical Impairments
Communication Disorders Quarterly, February 1, 2008; 29(2): 99 - 108.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
G. Loots, I. Devise, and W. Jacquet
The Impact of Visual Communication on the Intersubjective Development of Early Parent-Child Interaction With 18- to 24-Month-Old Deaf Toddlers
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., October 1, 2005; 10(4): 357 - 375.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]