Multilingual DHH SR (Crowe & Guiberson, 2019)

Purpose: Many educators and speech-language pathologists have difficulty providing effective interventions to the growing population of d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) learners who use more than 1 language. The purpose of this review article was to identify evidence-based interventions for speech, language, and literacy used with DHH multilingual learners (DMLs), monolingual DHH learners, and hearing bilingual learners without hearing loss. Interventions used with these groups can inform the practice of professionals providing services to DMLs.Method: This review article considered speech, language, and literacy interventions used with DHH and hearing bilingual learners from birth to 21 years of age. The following electronic databases were searched: Academic Search Complete/EBSCO (CINAHL, Education, ERIC), Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Data describing article, participant, methodological, and intervention variables were extracted from studies. The methodological quality of studies was examined using the Council for Exceptional Children’s (2014) standards for evidence-based practice in special education.Results: A total of 144 studies were reviewed, describing over 9,370 learners aged 1.8–22.0 years. Two studies investigated DMLs, 76 investigated DHH learners, and 67 investigated hearing bilingual learners. A total of 146 different interventions were examined. Most studies reported positive effects. Only 17 studies met all quality indicators specified by the Council for Exceptional Children (2014): 7 examined DHH learners, and 10 examined hearing bilingual learners. There was insufficient evidence for any intervention to be considered an evidence-based intervention, although 6 could potentially contribute to evidence-based practice.Conclusions: No evidence-based interventions for DMLs were identified. A small number of interventions examined in high-quality studies of DHH and hearing bilingual learners were identified, which may be appropriate for use with DMLs following further investigation.Supplemental Material S1. PRISMA table: Documentation of how this systematic review addressed each element of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.Supplemental Material S2. Search strategy: Documents the search terms and limits used for each electronic database searched and the number of hits that were received for each term combination.Supplemental Material S3. Study information: Table summarizing key article, participant, methodological, and intervention information from each of the 144 studies included in this review.Crowe, K., & Guiberson, M. (2019). Evidence-based interventions for learners who are deaf and/or multilingual: A systematic quality review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28, 964–983.Publisher Note: This article is part of the Forum: Innovations in Clinical Practice for Dual Language Learners, Part 1.

目的：众多教育工作者和言语病理学家在为使用超过一种语言的日益增长的聋和听力受损（DHH）学习者提供有效的干预措施方面面临困难。本综述文章旨在识别用于聋和听力受损多语言学习者（DMLs）、单语DHH学习者和无听力损失的双语听力学习者的基于证据的言语、语言和读写能力干预措施。这些群体的干预措施可以指导为DMLs提供服务的专业人士的实践。方法：本综述文章考虑了从出生到21岁之间使用的聋和听力受损以及听力双语学习者的言语、语言和读写能力干预措施。检索了以下电子数据库：学术搜索完整/EBSCO（CINAHL、教育、ERIC）、语言学与语言行为摘要、PsycINFO和PubMed。从研究中提取了描述文章、参与者、方法论和干预变量的数据。使用美国特殊教育委员会（2014年）的证据为基础的实践标准检查了研究的方法论质量。结果：共审查了144项研究，描述了1.8至22.0岁之间的9370多名学习者。两项研究调查了DMLs，76项研究调查了DHH学习者，67项研究调查了听力双语学习者。共审查了146种不同的干预措施。大多数研究报告了积极的效果。只有17项研究符合美国特殊教育委员会（2014年）规定的所有质量指标：7项研究调查了DHH学习者，10项研究调查了听力双语学习者。没有足够的证据将任何干预措施视为基于证据的干预措施，尽管其中6项可能有助于基于证据的实践。结论：未发现针对DMLs的基于证据的干预措施。在高质量研究中审查的一些针对DHH和听力双语学习者的干预措施可能适用于DMLs，但需进一步研究。补充材料S1. PRISMA表格：记录了本系统评价如何处理系统评价和荟萃分析优先报告项目（PRISMA）清单的每个要素。补充材料S2. 搜索策略：记录了每个电子数据库的搜索词和限制以及每个术语组合的检索次数。补充材料S3. 研究信息：表格总结了本综述中包含的144项研究的关键文章、参与者、方法论和干预信息。Crowe, K. & Guiberson, M. (2019). 针对聋和/或多语言学习者的基于证据的干预措施：一项系统质量评价。美国言语-语言病理学杂志，28，964–983。出版商注记：本文是论坛的一部分：针对双语学习者的临床实践创新，第一部分。