Auditory-Only and Auditory-Visual Presentations of the Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language to Hearing-Impaired Children

Robinson, Dale O.

doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1904.349

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(10–12) These instruments were chosen because they maintain a high level of reliability and validity over time, they have been extensively standardized on typically developing children with normal hearing, and because all of these measures have been successfully applied hard of hearing children and sign language users. (2,13,14, 22, 23) The age equivalent score was the metric we used for all analyses and to plot individual developmental trajectories. The use of a norm-based metric is advantageous because it allows the comparison of results for children with hearing loss with their normal hearing peers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Describing the Trajectory of Language Development in the Presence of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

Yoshinaga-Itano¹,

Baca²,

Sedey³

2010

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONCochlear implantation has become a common recommendation for parents of children with severe to profound hearing loss. This surgical intervention has numerous reported benefits including improved speech and language skills as well as higher academic achievement. (1)(2)(3) In fact, there is evidence that some children receiving cochlear implants before 24 months have attained some aspects of language comparable to their normal hearing peers, but we currently have no indication that implantation between 6 and 12 months results in significantly better language development than those implanted between 12 and 24 months of age. (4)(5)(6)(7) Regardless of early implantation, this population of children maintains a substantial amount of variability in language outcomes. (8) Some known predictors of language outcomes include parent level of education and non-verbal cognitive development. (9) The socio-economic levels of many families in cochlear implant research articles are often quite high with a typical average of college education or above (16 years or greater) which may contribute to an upward bias in outcomes or an indication of how family characteristics may relate to treatment choices.Advances in CI technology and surgical procedures have closely coincided with early intervention initiatives and advances in hearing aid technology as well. In this technological age, it should be noted that many families still choose hearing aids rather than implantation for their child with severe or profound hearing loss. As such, this paper aims to compare the language developmental trends as well as the background characteristics of children with hearing aids (HA) and children with cochlear implants (CI) with severe to profound hearing loss under the establishment of universal newborn screening in the state of Colorado. One aspect of our study population that is unusual compared to other states is that Colorado represents a state-wide population with children who have been implanted in various programs. At the time of data collection for the current study, there were seven cochlear implant programs in the state, three of the seven programs implanted the majority of the children in the Denver metropolitan area but some of the children were implanted in other areas of the state. The parents of these children chose to enroll their children in the Colorado Home Intervention Program, a public program that provides early intervention services to over 90% of the children identified with hearing loss from birth through three years of age.In addition, almost all children who received cochlear implants also received services through a clinic-based program after implantation and were seen by speech/language pathologists who were certified auditory verbal specialists or auditory-oral specialists with extensive experience.It is not uncommon for Colorado families to participate in sign language instruction. Over 80 percent of the families in our data source engage in sign language instruction from an individual who was deaf or ha...

show abstract