Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, one-sample t-test (vs. 50) results, and correlations with SLP experience for SLPs’ endorsement scores.

					One sample t-test			Correlation with SLP experience
Statement	True or myth	Mean (SD)	Range	n	t	p	d	r	p
Bilingualism
Children who are deaf and hard of hearing have the capacity to develop skills in two oral languages.	True	75 (20)	19–100	105	13.09*	<.001	1.28	−.23	.02
Children who are deaf and hard of hearing will be confused by being exposed to two oral languages.	Myth	25 (20)	0–81	105	−12.84*	<.001	1.25	.29	.003
Learning two oral languages is too great of a challenge for children who are deaf and hard of hearing.	Myth	24 (19)	0–83	104	−14.03*	<.001	1.38	.45*	<.001
Hearing technology
Pediatric cochlear implant candidates who undergo cochlear implantation at relatively young ages are expected to achieve higher speech and language outcomes than candidates who undergo implantation at relatively older ages.	True	73 (19)	0–100	105	12.50*	<.001	1.22	−.13	.20
School-age children who are deaf and hard of hearing who use spoken language and are fit appropriately with hearing technology likely do not need additional education services.	Myth	24 (18)	0–100	104	−14.22*	<.001	1.39	−.05	.59
Audiovisual integration
Children who are deaf and hard of hearing develop their auditory skills more during language intervention sessions if they cannot see the person talking than if they can.	Myth	45 (26)	0–100	103	−1.85	.07	0.18	−.12	.25
Children who are deaf and hard of hearing will become overly reliant on visual cues if they are not taught to listen.	Myth	46 (22)	0–100	105	−1.97	.05	0.19	−.004	.97

Note. A score of 0 corresponds to the anchor of “strongly disagree” and 100 corresponds to the anchor of “strongly agree” on the visual analogue scale. d = effect size (Francis & Jakicic, 2022). SLP = speech-language pathologist.

*Statistically significant with the Bonferroni correction to address family-wise error (i.e., p < .007; Nicholson et al., 2022).