Skip to main content
. 2015 Dec 27;21(2):107–121. doi: 10.1093/deafed/env060

Table 2.

Studies excluded from meta-analysis for research questions 1, 2, and 4 after meeting initial screening criteria

Study Reason for exclusion
Bergeson, Pisoni, and Davis (2003) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Chilosi et al. (2013) Only age-equivalent scores reported
Connor et al. (2000) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Connor et al. (2006) Only age-equivalent scores reported
Convertino et al. (2014) Participants were college students (born before 2000)
Coppens et al. (2013) Measured lexical decision making, not general vocabulary knowledge
Dawson et al. (1995) Comparison within group with hearing loss
Dillon, De Jong, and Pisoni (2012)a Comparison with normative data for hearing children from test
Easterbrooks et al. (2008) Comparison within group with hearing loss
Edwards et al. (2011) Group with hearing loss contained both children with cochlear implants and hearing aids
El-Hakim et al. (2001) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Ertmer, Strong, and Sadagopan (2003) Only one participant; no comparison group
Ertmer and Inniger (2009) Only two participants; no comparison group
Fagan and Pisoni (2010)a Comparison with normative data for hearing children from test
Fitzpatrick et al. (2012) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Geers et al. (2009)a Comparison with normative data for hearing children from test
Geers and Nicholas (2013)a Comparison with normative data for hearing children from test
Geers, Spehar, and Sedey (2002) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Hayes et al. (2009) Did not provide means or standard deviations
Holt, Kirk, and Hay-McCutcheon (2011) No report of means from vocabulary testing
Houston et al. (2005) Experimenter-created measure for rapid word learning assessment, not general vocabulary knowledge
Houston et al. (2012) Normal-hearing comparison group administered different vocabulary assessment than cochlear implant group
Huttunen and Ryder (2012) Measured mentalizing vocabulary, not general vocabulary knowledge
Iwasaki et al. (2012) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
James et al. (2009) Only age-equivalent scores reported
Kenett et al. (2013) Experimenter-created measure for verbal fluency, not general vocabulary knowledge
Kosaner et al. (2013) Measured time to acquire first 100 words, not general vocabulary knowledge
Lofkvist et al. (2012) Measure assessed verbal fluency, not general vocabulary knowledge
Lu et al. (2013) Assessed validity of a vocabulary test without direct normal-hearing comparison
Nicholas and Geers (2008) Means/standard deviations not provided
Nittrouer et al. (2013) Reported on same participants as Nittrouer et al. (2014)
Oh and Kim (2004) Comparison within participants with hearing loss
Ostojic et al. (2011) Validity of vocabulary measure unclear; means and standard deviations not provided
Sarant and Garrard (2014)a Comparison with normative data for hearing children from test
Spencer (2004) Comparisons within group with hearing loss
Svirksy, Teoh, and Nueburger (2004) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Tomblin et al. (1999) Comparison between groups with hearing loss
Unterstein (2010) Dissertation document with participants reported in Luckhurst et al. (2013)
Warner-Czyz, Davis, and Morrison (2005) Only one participant
Wass et al. (2008) Measure assessed response latency rather than general vocabulary knowledge
Wechsler-Kasi, Schwartz, and Cleary (2014) Experimenter-created measure not assessing general vocabulary knowledge

Note.aIndicates study was only excluded as a result of using normative data comparisons; these studies were included in the analysis for research question 3.