How do face masks impact communication amongst deaf/HoH people?

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 6 Summary of significant effects in the regression analysis on measures related with communication improvement

Model		b	t	p	95% CI
Model		b	t	p	LL	UL
Outcome measure: perceived effort from others to improve communication
1	Residence	− 0.132	− 2.619	0.009	− 0.271	− 0.039
1	Level deaf	0.130	2.427	0.016	0.030	0.283
3	Residence * Onset deaf	− 0.318	− 2.237	0.026	− 0.644	− 0.041
Outcome measure: perceived efficacy of transparent or clear window masks to facilitate communication
1	SL	− 0.179	− 2.950	0.003	− 0.419	− 0.084
1	Lipreading fluency	0.122	2.341	0.020	0.027	0.310
2	Onset deaf	0.180	1.983	0.048	0.002	0.491
2	SL	− 0.222	− 2.447	0.015	− 0.564	− 0.061
2	Residence * SL	0.238	3.075	0.002	0.110	0.499
2	Level deaf. * SL	− 0.166	− 2.491	0.013	− 0.417	− 0.049
3	SL	− 0.277	− 2.087	0.038	− 0.757	− 0.023
3	Residence * Level deaf	− 0.402	− 2.954	0.003	− 0.853	− 0.171
3	Residence * SL	0.389	2.935	0.004	0.164	0.832
3	Level deaf. * SL	− 0.216	− 2.248	0.025	− 0.569	− 0.038
3	Residence * Level deaf. * Lipreading fluency	0.295	2.268	0.024	0.050	0.696
Outcome measure: perceived efficacy of transparent face shields to facilitate communication
1	Level deaf	− 0.107	− 1.974	0.049	− 0.269	− 0.001
1	Lipreading fluency	0.170	3.289	0.001	0.085	0.337

CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. The predictors were vector coded: Residence: UK = 1, Spain = − 1; Level deaf: Deaf = 1, HoH = − 1; Onset deaf.: Early = 1, Late = − 1; SL: Know SL = 1, Does not know SL = − 1; Lipreading fluency: Fluent = 1, non-fluent = − 1