Feasibility of a Supplemental Phonological Awareness Intervention via Telepractice for Children with Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

The goal of the current study was to examine the feasibility of a telepractice intervention to improve phonological awareness skills in children with hearing loss as compared to a conventional in-person intervention. Twenty children with hearing loss participated in this study. Two groups of ten children each received a supplemental phonological awareness intervention either via telepractice or an in-person service delivery model. Within each of the two groups, five children were enrolled in preschool or kindergarten and five children were enrolled in first or second grade. The two groups of children demonstrated similar phonological awareness, non-verbal IQ, and vocabulary skills during pre-tests. After a 12-week intervention children with hearing loss showed improved phonological awareness skills as measured by a standardized post-test. No significant differences were found between the performance of the telepractice group and in-person group. Nor was a significant interaction found between the two age groups (PreK/K vs. 1st /2nd grade) and the two types of service delivery models (in-person vs. telepractice). The results suggest that a telepractice service delivery model is feasible for young children with hearing loss, and that telepractice may be as effective as in-person intervention in improving phonological awareness skills.

Análise das Estratégias Empregadas em um Programa de Intervenção Fonológica para Crianças com Deficiência Auditiva1,

“…In this research, the results obtained corroborate those found in the literature, that there is a need for adaptations for phonological intervention for children with hearing loss (Easterbrooks, Lederberg, & Connor, 2010;Lederberg et al, 2014;Lee, Hall, & Sancibrian, 2017).…”

“…In a controlled experimental study with 37 hearing impaired preschoolers, Gilliver, Cupples, Ching, Leigh and Gunnourie (2016) found that the specific phonological awareness training was superior to the vocabulary training of the control group, and that this type of intervention is therefore highly beneficial for children with hearing impairment. Similar results confirm that the specific phonological awareness training is positive for children with hearing impairment at pre and school ages, including computerized training or using telepractice resources (Chen, 2014;Lee, Hall, & Sancibrian, 2017;Miller, Lederberg, & Easterbrooks, 2013;Nakeva von Mentzer et al, 2013;Rakhshanfadaee & Salehi, 2016;Wang, Spychala, Harris, & Oetting, 2013;Werfel, Douglas, & Ackal, 2016).…”

“…The phonological intervention was based on Capellini et al (2010), Salgado (2010) and in the literature review on phonological intervention programs for children with hearing impairment in other languages (Lederberg et al, 2014;Lee, Hall, & Sancibrian, 2017;Spencer et al, 2008). Each session had an average of four children per class.…”

“…In Brazil, the scarcity of studies on phonological intervention with the population of hearing-impaired children brings to light the need to build or adapt specific instructional programs for these skills, which seek to develop, in general: the grapheme-phoneme relationship, rhyme, alliteration, syllabic manipulation, phonemic manipulation, identification of words in sentences (Capellini et al, 2010), working memory, also including reading and writing in later stages (Salgado, 2010). It is important, therefore, to investigate the best way to work such skills with hearing-impaired children, since adaptations are necessary, as referred to by literature (Easterbrooks, Lederberg, & Connor, 2010;Lederberg et al, 2014;Lee, Hall, & Sancibrian, 2017).…”

The treatment efficacy of multiple opposition phonological approach via telepractice for two children with severe phonological disorders in rural areas of West Texas in the USA

“…Recently, additional studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy of speech-language assessment and intervention via telepractice. The majority of these studies were still mainly conducted with adult populations; only a few telepractice intervention studies involving children with speech-language impairment are available (Constantinescu et al, 2014;Gabel et al, 2013;Grogan-Johnson et al, 2010, 2011, 2013Lee et al, 2017;Wilson et al, 2004). Among these studies, only two studies (Grogan-Johnson et al, 2011, 2013 investigated the efficacy of speech intervention via telepractice for children with SSD.…”