Early Hearing Detection and Vocabulary of Children With Hearing Loss

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES To date, no studies have examined vocabulary outcomes of children meeting all 3 components of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) guidelines (hearing screening by 1 month, diagnosis of hearing loss by 3 months, and intervention by 6 months of age). The primary purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of the current EHDI 1-3-6 policy on vocabulary outcomes across a wide geographic area. A secondary goal was to confirm the impact of other demographic variables previously reported to be related to language outcomes. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of 448 children with bilateral hearing loss between 8 and 39 months of age (mean = 25.3 months, SD = 7.5 months). The children lived in 12 different states and were participating in the National Early Childhood Assessment Project. RESULTS The combination of 6 factors in a regression analysis accounted for 41% of the variance in vocabulary outcomes. Vocabulary quotients were significantly higher for children who met the EHDI guidelines, were younger, had no additional disabilities, had mild to moderate hearing loss, had parents who were deaf or hard of hearing, and had mothers with higher levels of education. CONCLUSIONS Vocabulary learning may be enhanced with system improvements that increase the number of children meeting the current early identification and intervention guidelines. In addition, intervention efforts need to focus on preventing widening delays with chronological age, assisting mothers with lower levels of education, and incorporating adults who are deaf/hard-of-hearing in the intervention process.

The left lateral occipital cortex exhibits decreased thickness in children with sensorineural hearing loss

“…First, the possible presence of selection bias (health care access bias) could not be excluded completely, because our study is a retrospective study from a single facility with a relatively small sample size. In terms of SNHL severity, M‐M SNHL vs M–P SNHL were 57% vs 43% in a prior cross‐section study (Yoshinaga‐Itano et al, 2017) and 60% vs 40% in the current study, suggesting that our cohort may be representative of patients with SNHL in other institutions and that our findings might be generalizable to other SNHL patients.…”

“…Despite advances in screening and cochlear implantation (Monshizadeh et al, 2018), there are still many children with hearing loss that suffer from speech and language problems for a variety of reasons, including delayed diagnosis/intervention, failed follow‐up, sporadic attendance of auditory‐verbal therapy, and decision not to use hearing aids (Lü et al, 2011; Fitzpatrick et al, 2017). Additionally, even after intervention with hearing amplification and cochlear implants, SNHL places children at risk for language delay (Tomblin et al, 2015; Yoshinaga‐Itano et al, 2017), executive functioning deficits (Kronenberger et al, 2014), and visual cognitive impairment (Dye and Hauser, 2014; Turgeon et al, 2012), leading to life‐long consequences for affected children.…”

Suicidal Behaviors and Help‐Seeking Attitudes Among Deaf and Hard‐of‐Hearing College Students

“…Research with D/HH persons found that social participation and feeling included in group conversations as well as being recognized and accepted as a deaf member in their environment were related to QoL (Kushalnagar et al, ). Research has also shown that having a deaf parent is associated with benefit to a deaf child (Hall, Smith, Sutter, DeWindt & Dye, ; Yoshinaga‐Itano, Sedey, Wiggin & Chung, ). Deaf mentor programs provide an alternative way to connect a family, comprised of hearing parents with a D/HH child, with a D/HH adult role model.…”

Children with congenital hearing loss – a vulnerable group

“…Det er internasjonal enighet om at tidlig diagnostisering og oppfølging av hørselstap er viktig for at barna skal ha en god språkutvikling (13,14). Andre faktorer som er vist å ha en positiv innvirkning på språkutviklingen, er blant annet høyt utdanningsnivå hos mor og at barnet ikke har tilleggsvansker (14). En stor andel av barna har imidlertid dårlig språkutvikling uten at man har funnet årsaken til det.…”