Objectives To address the question of whether, on a population level, early detection and amplification improve outcomes of children with hearing impairment. Design All families of children who were born between 2002 and 2007, and who presented for hearing services below 3 years of age at Australian Hearing pediatric centers in New South Wales, Victoria and Southern Queensland were invited to participate in a prospective study on outcomes. Children’s speech, language, functional and social outcomes were assessed at 3 years of age, using a battery of age-appropriate tests. Demographic information relating to the child, family, and educational intervention was solicited through the use of custom-designed questionnaires. Audiological data were collected from the national database of Australian Hearing and records held at educational intervention agencies for children. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effects of each of 15 predictor variables, including age of amplification, on outcomes. Results Four hundred and fifty-one children enrolled in the study, 56% of whom received their first hearing-aid fitting before 6 months of age. Based on clinical records, 44 children (10%) were diagnosed with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. There were 107 children (24%) reported to have additional disabilities. At 3 years of age, 317 children (70%) were hearing-aid users and 134 children (30%) used cochlear implants. Based on parent reports, about 71% used an aural/oral mode of communication, and about 79% used English as the spoken language at home. Children’s performance scores on standardized tests administered at 3 years of age were used in a factor analysis to derive a global development factor score. On average, the global score of hearing-impaired children was more than one standard deviation (SD) below the mean of normal-hearing children at the same age. Regression analysis revealed that five factors, including female gender, absence of additional disabilities, less severe hearing loss, higher maternal education; and for children with cochlear implants, earlier age of switch-on; were associated with better outcomes at the 5% significance level. Whereas the effect of age of hearing aid fitting on child outcomes was weak, a younger age at cochlear implant switch-on was significantly associated with better outcomes for children with cochlear implants at 3 years of age. Conclusions Fifty-six percent of the 451 children were fitted with hearing aids before 6 months of age. At 3 years of age, 134 children used cochlear implants and the remaining children used hearing aids. On average, outcomes were well below population norms. Significant predictors of child outcomes include: presence/absence of additional disabilities, severity of hearing loss, gender, maternal education; together with age of switch-on for children with cochlear implants.

Early intervention improves language outcomes, thereby lending support to streamlining clinical pathways to ensure early amplification and cochlear implantation after diagnosis.

The LOCHI study has shown that early fitting of hearing devices is key to achieving better speech, language and functional performance outcomes for children with hearing loss. The findings are discussed in relation to changes in clinical practice and directions for future research.

This research investigated the speech, language, and functional auditory outcomes of 119 3-year-old children with hearing loss and additional disabilities. Outcomes were evaluated using direct assessment and caregiver report. Multiple regressions revealed that type of additional disability and level of maternal education were significant predictors of language outcomes. Poorer outcomes were achieved in a combined group of children with autism, cerebral palsy, and/or developmental delay (DD) (Group A), compared with children with vision or speech output impairments, syndromes not entailing DD, or medical disorders (Group B). Better outcomes were associated with higher levels of maternal education. The association between better language outcomes and earlier cochlear implant switch-on approached significance. Further regression analyses were conducted separately for children with different types of additional disabilities. Level of maternal education was the only significant predictor of outcomes for Group A children, whereas degree of hearing loss was the strongest predictor for children in Group B. The findings highlight the variable impact that different types of additional disabilities can have on language development in children with hearing loss.

Previous research has shown an association between children's development of psychosocial and motor skills. This study evaluated the development of these skills in 301 three-year-old deaf and hard of hearing children (M: 37.8 months) and considered a range of possible predictors including gender, birth weight, age at first fitting with hearing devices, hearing device used, presence of additional disabilities, severity of hearing loss, maternal education, socio-economic status (SES), language ability, and communication mode. Caregivers reported on children's development using the Child Development Inventory (CDI). On average, both psychosocial and motor development quotients were within the typical range for hearing children, with large individual differences. There was a positive correlation between language ability and both social and motor development, and also between social and motor development. Age at first fitting of hearing aids (as an indicator of age at identification of hearing loss), SES, degree of hearing loss, and maternal education were not significant predictors of social skill or motor development, whereas presence of additional disabilities and birth weight were. Girls performed better than boys on all but the Gross Motor subscale of the CDI. Children with hearing aids tended to perform better than those with cochlear implants on the Gross Motor subscale.

This article reports on the psychosocial development and factors influencing outcomes of 5-year-old children with cochlear implants (CIs) or hearing aids (HAs). It further examines differences between children with CIs and HAs with similar levels of hearing loss. Data were collected as part of the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment study—a prospective, population-based study. Parents/caregivers of children completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (n = 333), the Social Skills subscale from the Child Development Inventory (n = 317), and questionnaires on functional auditory behavior (Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/oral performance of Children), and demographics. Children completed assessments of nonverbal cognitive ability (Wechsler Non-verbal Scale of Ability) and language (Preschool Language Scale - fourth edition). On average, parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores on emotional or behavioral difficulties were within 1 SD of the normative mean; however, Child Development Inventory scores on social skills were more than 1 SD below the norm. Children with severe-to-profound hearing losses using HAs had significantly more behavioral problems than children with CIs. Regression analyses showed that non-verbal cognitive ability, language, and functional auditory behavior were significantly associated with psychosocial outcomes for children with HAs, whereas outcomes for children with CIs were associated with functional auditory behavior and the presence of additional disabilities. Age at hearing intervention, severity of hearing loss, and communication mode were not associated with outcomes. The results suggest that even children who develop good language ability with the help of a HA or CI may have psychosocial problems if they exhibit difficulties with listening and communicating in everyday environments. The findings have implications for developing interventions for young children with hearing loss.

The results underscore the importance of early device fitting for children with additional disabilities. Strong conclusions cannot be drawn for CI users given the small number of participants with complete data.

Caption rate and text reduction are factors that appear to affect the comprehension of captions by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. These 2 factors are confounded in everyday captioning; rate (in words per minute) is slowed by text reduction. In this study, caption rate and text reduction were manipulated independently in 2 experiments to assess any differential effects and possible benefits for comprehension by deaf and hard-of-hearing adults. Volunteers for the study included adults with a range of reading levels, self-reported hearing status, and different communication and language preferences. Results indicate that caption rate (at 130, 180, 230 words per minute) and text reduction (at 84%, 92%, and 100% original text) have different effects for different adult users, depending on hearing status, age, and reading level. In particular, reading level emerges as a dominant factor: more proficient readers show better comprehension than poor readers and are better able to benefit from caption rate and, to some extent, text reduction modifications.