Effects of Parents' Mealtime Conversation Techniques for Preschool Children With Hearing Loss Who Use Listening and Spoken Language

Smolen, Elaine R.; Wang, Ye; Hartman, Maria C.; Lee, Young‐Sun

doi:10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00420

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We chose to include measures of these three language domains to provide a broad representation of language abilities in these children. We included these specific measures because they are commonly used in studies of CHH and children with CIs (e.g., Tobey et al 2013;Walker et al 2016;Smolen et al 2021), and they have good validity and reliability (Carrow-Woolfolk 1999;Dunn & Dunn 2007). In the current dataset, we included the most recent measure of each language assessment from the longitudinal dataset (Table 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine if traditional audiologic measures (e.g., pure-tone average, speech recognition) and audibility-based measures predict risk for spoken language delay in children who are hard of hearing (CHH) who use hearing aids (HAs). Audibility-based measures included the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), HA use, and auditory dosage, a measure of auditory access that weighs each child’s unaided and aided audibility by the average hours of HA use per day. The authors also sought to estimate values of these measures at which CHH would be at greater risk for delayed outcomes compared with a group of children with typical hearing (CTH) matched for age and socioeconomic status, potentially signaling a need to make changes to a child’s hearing technology or intervention plan. Design: The authors compared spoken language outcomes of 182 CHH and 78 CTH and evaluated relationships between language and audiologic measures (e.g., aided SII) in CHH using generalized additive models. They used these models to identify values associated with falling below CTH (by > 1.5 SDs from the mean) on language assessments, putting CHH at risk for language delay. Results: Risk for language delay was associated with aided speech recognition in noise performance (<59% phonemes correct, 95% confidence interval [55%, 62%]), aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII < 0.61, 95% confidence internal [.53,.68]), and auditory dosage (dosage < 6.0, 95% confidence internal [5.3, 6.7]) in CHH. The level of speech recognition in quiet, unaided pure-tone average, and unaided SII that placed children at risk for language delay could not be determined due to imprecise estimates with broad confidence intervals. Conclusions: Results support using aided SII, aided speech recognition in noise measures, and auditory dosage as tools to facilitate clinical decision-making, such as deciding whether changes to a child’s hearing technology are warranted. Values identified in this article can complement other metrics (e.g., unaided hearing thresholds, aided speech recognition testing, language assessment) when considering changes to intervention, such as adding language supports, making HA adjustments, or referring for cochlear implant candidacy evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research undertaken with hearing families [see the systematic review by Holme et al (2022) ] increasingly features researchers capturing interactions within daily routines, in homes, using video and audio-based recording equipment. There are some recent studies with deaf infants that seek to capture interactions throughout the whole day ( Brock and Bass-Ringdahl, 2021 ) or during activities such as mealtimes ( Smolen et al, 2021 ) but these embrace audio-only recording software (LENA belts) which therefore limits the perspective on PCI with deaf infants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It doesn’t matter if we’re the most amazing professionals in the world…” A qualitative study of professionals’ perspectives on parent-child interaction assessment with deaf infants

Curtin,

Wakefield,

Herman

et al. 2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionParent child interaction (PCI) is positively associated with deaf children’s language development. However, there are no known, deaf-specific tools to observe how a parent interacts with their deaf child aged 0–3 years. Without a framework for professionals to use with families, it is unknown how professionals assess PCI, what they assess, why they assess, and how the assessment results relate to case management.MethodsEighteen hearing and deaf professionals, who work with deaf and hard of hearing infants aged 0–3 years and their families, attended online focus groups. The aim of the study was to gain insight into the professional assessment of PCI. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.FindingsSix themes were generated from the dataset. Professionals discussed how central parents were in the support offered to families in the home, the importance of knowing and understanding the individual family, and accounting for and supporting parental wellbeing. Descriptions on how to administer a best practice PCI assessment included which parent behaviors to assess and how to make adaptations for different populations. Professionals shared how the assessment and review process could be used to inform and upskill parents through video reflection and goal setting.DiscussionThis study provides insight into the mechanisms and motivations for professionals assessing the interactive behaviors of parents who have deaf children aged 0–3. Professionals acknowledged that family life is multi-faceted, and that support is most meaningful to families when professionals worked with these differences and incorporated them into assessment, goal setting, and intervention plans.

show abstract

“…As per expert comments in S1 File, it is therefore important to follow each family's lead in how to assess PCI and to respect the parent as the expert of their child and their child's conditions. Including deaf-plus children in studies that record every day routines is emerging [47][48][49], but these studies used audio-only recording software (LENA) which limits an analysis of PCI.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing parent-child interaction with deaf and hard of hearing infants aged 0–3 years: An international multi-professional e-Delphi

Curtin,

Cruice,

Morgan

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Most deaf babies are born to hearing families who do not yet have the skills to communicate effectively with their child. Adaptations to communication are important because the quality of parent-child interaction (PCI) predicts how a deaf child develops language. Teachers of Deaf children and Speech and Language Therapists support families with communication in the home. Currently, there are no assessments that appraise how a parent interacts with their deaf baby. Previous research has identified which parent behaviours and approaches are used in PCI assessments in research and practice. The current paper forms consensus on the core content and best practices of a new PCI tool for deaf children aged 0–3 years. Methods An international sample of expert academics and practitioners (n = 83) were recruited to take part in a two-round modified electronic Delphi study. Participants were presented with 69 statements focusing on (i) which parent behaviours were important in assessment (ii) the methods to be used in PCI assessment. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five-point Likert scale and gave comments to support their response. Consensus was defined as >80% of participants rating the statement as a (4) ‘highly important’ or a (5) ‘essential’. If consensus was not reached, participant comments were used to generate new statements which were rated in the second round. This project involved a patient and public involvement (PPI) group of hearing and deaf parents and professionals to design and guide the study. Results Consensus was achieved on 52 statements and ranged from 80–99%. A further six statements were additionally included. Within the 58 statements included, 36 were parent behaviours which centred on the parent’s observation of, and response to, their child’s behaviour and/or language. The remaining 22 statements focused on methods used in the assessment such as parents having their PCI filmed, parents having the opportunity to review the video and assess themselves alongside a professional, and parents being involved in subsequent goal setting. Conclusions This e-Delphi presented the parent behaviours and methods of assessment to be included in a new PCI tool for deaf children. Future co-production work and acceptability and feasibility testing are discussed.

show abstract

Effects of Parents' Mealtime Conversation Techniques for Preschool Children With Hearing Loss Who Use Listening and Spoken Language

Cited by 5 publications

References 72 publications

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

“It doesn’t matter if we’re the most amazing professionals in the world…” A qualitative study of professionals’ perspectives on parent-child interaction assessment with deaf infants

Assessing parent-child interaction with deaf and hard of hearing infants aged 0–3 years: An international multi-professional e-Delphi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About