The results of this study suggest that despite fitting of a device at an early age, HL continues to impact early lexical acquisition and the emergence of word combinations. Further, similarities between the hearing and HL groups, such as the overall pattern of lexical acquisition and a lexicogrammatical link, suggest that the processes underpinning early language acquisition for hearing children and those with HL may also be similar.

This procedure has potential for use as a reliable clinical and research tool for assessing the development of auditory discrimination ability in 2- to 4-yr-old severe-profoundly deaf children.

This article presents an initial evaluation of a technique known as the Diary of Early Language (Di-EL), designed to obtain data about early lexical development in young children with profound hearing loss using cochlear implants, hearing aids, or both. The validity of the Di-EL, a parent report technique, was examined through comparisons with other measures of language development. Lexical data reported by parents using the Di-EL was found to agree with that reported by the same parents for the same children using the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI), although some differences in the lexical items were noted. Rate of lexical acquisition on the Di-EL was found to correlate highly with that measured by the CDI and with expressive language skills as measured by the Rossetti Infant Toddler Language Scale, suggesting that the Di-EL is a valid measure of early lexical progress. These results are discussed with reference to other diary studies, along with research and clinical applications of the Di-EL.

Overall, lexical content of the HL group was similar to that of the hearing group for both the 50- and 100-word lexicons, although some differences in proportional use were noted across word categories and types. It is suggested that differences in the quantity and diversity of language experienced by children with normal hearing compared with those with HL, together with differences in the input they receive, might in part explain these differences. The effect of quality of speech input and therapy method on the emerging lexicon and subsequent language development will be particularly important in informing appropriate intervention strategies for children with HL.