Factors that affect the social well-being of children with cochlear implants

Percy-Smith, Lone; Jensen, Jørgen Hedegaard; Cayé‐Thomasen, Per; Thomsen, Jens; Gudman, Mette; López, Ana García

doi:10.1179/cim.2008.9.4.199

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The negative effects found for children with hearing loss can be reduced by adequate language and communication skills. Our study confirmed the findings that better oral communication skills are related to lower levels of psychopathology ( van Eldik et al 2004 ; Percy-Smith et al 2008 ; Barker et al 2009 ; Fellinger et al 2009a; Stevenson et al 2010 ). These findings stress the fact that social language, pragmatic language, and communication are of utmost importance for preventing psychopathology.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Various risk and protective factors, which typically affect the level of psychopathology, across those individuals within the population with hearing loss, have been identified. Children with significant hearing loss, who had higher levels of speech, language, or vocabulary, showed fewer symptoms of psychopathology ( van Eldik et al 2004 ; Percy-Smith et al 2008 ; Barker et al 2009 ; Theunissen et al 2012 ). However, the use of sign language was related to more symptoms of psychopathology ( van Gent et al 2007 ; Remine & Brown 2010 ; Theunissen et al 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Symptoms of Psychopathology in Hearing-Impaired Children

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Children with hearing loss are at risk of developing psychopathology, which has detrimental consequences for academic and psychosocial functioning later in life. Yet, the causes of the extensive variability in outcomes are not fully understood. Therefore, the authors wanted to objectify symptoms of psychopathology in children with cochlear implants or hearing aids, and in normally hearing peers, and to identify various risk and protective factors.Design:The large sample (mean age = 11.8 years) included three subgroups with comparable age, gender, socioeconomic status, and nonverbal intelligence: 57 with cochlear implants, 75 with conventional hearing aids, and 129 children who were normally hearing. Psychopathology was assessed by means of self- and parent-report measures.Results:Children with cochlear implants showed similar levels of symptoms of psychopathology when compared with their normally hearing peers, but children with hearing aids had significantly higher levels of psychopathological symptoms, while their hearing losses were approximately 43 dB lower than those of children with implants. Type of device was related with internalizing symptoms but not with externalizing symptoms. Furthermore, lower age and sufficient language and communication skills predicted less psychopathological symptoms.Conclusions:Children who are deaf or profoundly hearing impaired and have cochlear implants have lower levels of psychopathological symptoms than children with moderate or severe hearing loss who have hearing aids. Most likely, it is not the type of hearing device but rather the intensity of the rehabilitation program that can account for this difference. This outcome has major consequences for the next generation of children with hearing loss because children with profound hearing impairment still have the potential to have levels of psychopathology that are comparable to children who are normally hearing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptoms of Psychopathology in Hearing-Impaired Children

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is generally recognised that the factors include child-related characteristics such as age at fitting (e.g., Pipp-Siegel et al 2003; Sininger et al 2010; Worsfold et al 2010), age at implantation (Artieres et al 2009; Geers et al 2008; Niparko et al 2010), non-verbal cognitive ability (e.g., Geers et al 2003), presence of additional disabilities (e.g., Dammeyer 2010), severity of hearing loss (e.g., Baudonck et al 2010; Wake et al 2004); family characteristics such as communication mode used at home (Eisenberg et al 2004; Leigh et al 2009; Percy-Smith et al 2008), maternal education (Fitzpatrick et al 2007), socio-economic status (Tobey et al 2003); and educational intervention characteristics such as communication mode used in education (e.g., Meristo et al 2007; Jiménez et al 2009; Geers & Sedey, 2011), and family involvement (e.g., Moeller 2000; Watkin et al 2007). Across studies, the extent to which various factors were predictive of outcomes varied along with the size and composition of study samples, devices used by children, ages at evaluation, nature of test instruments, and the specific factors selected for inclusion in regression analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Early- and Late-Identified Children at 3 Years of Age

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Although many children with CIs have been able to develop spoken language and other skills that would not have been possible with conventional hearing aids, it has been well-documented for many years through to the present time that many children with unilateral CIs show delays in the development of language (Blamey et al 2001: Geers 2002, Nittrouer et al 2012), speech production (Tobey et al 2003; Connor et al 2006; Spencer et al 2011), literacy (Crosson & Geers 2001; Marschark et al 2007; Geers & Hayes 2011), academic (Spencer et al 2003; Mukari et al 2007) and social skills (Bat-Chava et al 2005; Hintermair 2006). Although a number of children with unilateral CIs have been able to achieve age-appropriate development in many of these areas (Spencer et al 2004; Percy-Smith et al 2008; Duchesne et al 2009), for a significant number of these children developmental delays have been maintained or increased through to adulthood (Moeller et al 2007; Mukari et al 2007; Uziel et al 2007; Geers et al 2008). For this reason, the efficacy of bilateral CIs is being investigated, and bilateral cochlear implantation is becoming the standard of care for children with severe to profound hearing loss in developed countries around the world (National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implants in Children

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Although it has been established that bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) offer additional speech perception and localization benefits to many children with severe to profound hearing loss, whether these improved perceptual abilities facilitate significantly better language development has not yet been clearly established. The aims of this study were to compare language abilities of children having unilateral and bilateral CIs to quantify the rate of any improvement in language attributable to bilateral CIs and to document other predictors of language development in children with CIs.Design:The receptive vocabulary and language development of 91 children was assessed when they were aged either 5 or 8 years old by using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (fourth edition), and either the Preschool Language Scales (fourth edition) or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (fourth edition), respectively. Cognitive ability, parent involvement in children’s intervention or education programs, and family reading habits were also evaluated. Language outcomes were examined by using linear regression analyses. The influence of elements of parenting style, child characteristics, and family background as predictors of outcomes were examined.Results:Children using bilateral CIs achieved significantly better vocabulary outcomes and significantly higher scores on the Core and Expressive Language subscales of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (fourth edition) than did comparable children with unilateral CIs. Scores on the Preschool Language Scales (fourth edition) did not differ significantly between children with unilateral and bilateral CIs. Bilateral CI use was found to predict significantly faster rates of vocabulary and language development than unilateral CI use; the magnitude of this effect was moderated by child age at activation of the bilateral CI. In terms of parenting style, high levels of parental involvement, low amounts of screen time, and more time spent by adults reading to children facilitated significantly better vocabulary and language outcomes. In terms of child characteristics, higher cognitive ability and female sex were predictive of significantly better language outcomes. When family background factors were examined, having tertiary-educated primary caregivers and a family history of hearing loss were significantly predictive of better outcomes. Birth order was also found to have a significant negative effect on both vocabulary and language outcomes, with each older sibling predicting a 5 to 10% decrease in scores.Conclusions:Children with bilateral CIs achieved significantly better vocabulary outcomes, and 8-year-old children with bilateral CIs had significantly better language outcomes than did children with unilateral CIs. These improvements were moderated by children’s ages at both first and second CIs. The outcomes were also significantly predicted by a number of factors related to parenting, child characteristics, and family background. Fifty-one percent of the va...

show abstract

Factors that affect the social well-being of children with cochlear implants

Cited by 23 publications

References 25 publications

Symptoms of Psychopathology in Hearing-Impaired Children

Symptoms of Psychopathology in Hearing-Impaired Children

Outcomes of Early- and Late-Identified Children at 3 Years of Age

Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implants in Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About