The Effect of Hearing Impairment on the Quality of Attachment and Mother-Toddler Interaction

Lederberg, Amy R.; Mobley, Caryl E.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02886.x

Cited by 58 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Lederberg and Mobley (1990) did not find that hearing mothers are more rigid, negative and less likely to respond to their deaf children, they did find that the interactions were shorter, more likely to be interrupted due to break downs in communication, and the communication was likely to be controlled by the parent. Vaccari and Marschark (1997) also have reported that hearing parents are more directive and controlling in their interactions with their deaf children.…”

Section: Contribution Of Family Environment To Pediatric Cochlear Impmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Moreover, both receptive and expressive language skills develop better when parents follow the child’s lead than by redirecting the child’s selective/focused attention to a different referent and labeling it (Kaiser & Hancock, 2003; Kaiser et al, 1996; Yoder, McCathren, Warren, & Watson, 2001). And yet, mothers of children with hearing losses tend to be more controlling and directive, and dominate the interaction with their children with hearing loss than their normal-hearing children (Brinich, 1980; Henggler & Cooper, 1983; Lederberg & Mobley, 1990; Nienhuys et al, 1985; Spencer & Gutfreund, 1990; Vaccari & Marschark, 1997; Wedell-Monnig & Lumley, 1980), for example by initiating interactions and redirecting the child’s attention. Because these control strategies do not support language development in typically developing populations as effectively as strategies that capitalize on joint attention and following a child’s lead, if the same behavior pattern exists in hearing-impaired populations, it could put children with hearing loss at an even greater disadvantage for language development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of research on sources of variability in pediatric cochlear implant outcomes that has focused on families have concentrated efforts in the areas of the choice and use of communication modality (e.g., Geers, Brenner, & Davidson, 2003; Geers, Strube, Tobey, Pisoni & Moog, 2011; Holt & Svirsky, 2008; Kirk et al, 2002), provision of support (e.g., Edwards, Thomas, & Rajput, 2009; Nikolopoulos, Gibbin, & Dyar, 2004), the family’s role in therapy (Bertram & Päd, 1995; Moeller, 2000), and the family’s size (Geers et al, 2003, 2011), education level (Geers et al, 2003) and SES (Geers et al, 2003, 2011; Holt & Svirsky). In addition, several maternal factors have been investigated in children with sensory aids, including maternal attachment and sensitivity (e.g., Lederberg & Mobley, 1990; Pratt, 1991; Pressman, Pipp-Siegel, Yoshinaga-Itano, & Deas, 1999), and maternal involvement and self-efficacy (DesJardin, 2005; DesJardin & Eisenberg, 2007). Finally, maternal linguistic input has been widely implicated in language and literacy development in children with cochlear implants (e.g., DesJardin, Ambrose, & Eisenberg, 2008; DesJardin & Eisenberg, 2007).…”

Section: Contribution Of Family Environment To Pediatric Cochlear Impmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Holt

Beer

Kronenberger

et al. 2012

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the family environments of children with cochlear implants and to examine relationships between family environment and post-implant language development and executive function. Method Forty-five families of children with cochlear implants completed a self-report family environment questionnaire (FES) and an inventory of executive function (BRIEF/BRIEF-P). Children’s receptive vocabulary (PPVT-4) and global language skills (PLS-4/CELF-4) were also evaluated. Results The family environments of children with cochlear implants differed from those of normal-hearing children, but not in clinically significant ways. Language development and executive function were found to be atypical, but not uncharacteristic of this clinical population. Families with higher levels of self-reported control had children with smaller vocabularies. Families reporting a higher emphasis on achievement had children with fewer executive function and working memory problems. Finally, families reporting a higher emphasis on organization had children with fewer problems related to inhibition. Conclusions Some of the variability in cochlear implantation outcomes that have protracted periods of development is related to family environment. Because family environment can be modified and enhanced by therapy or education, these preliminary findings hold promise for future work in helping families to create robust language-learning environments that can maximize their child’s potential with a cochlear implant.

show abstract

Section: Contribution Of Family Environment To Pediatric Cochlear Impmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contribution Of Family Environment To Pediatric Cochlear Impmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Holt

Beer

Kronenberger

et al. 2012

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most research on the family’s role in children’s cochlear implantation outcomes has emphasized the role of family in therapy 3,4 , support provided at home 5,6 , use of oral language 7,8,9,10 , family size 7,8 , education level 7 , socioeconomic status 7,8,9 , and several maternal factors including attachment and sensitivity 11,12,13 , qualitative and quantitative linguistic input to the child 14,15 , and sensitivity and self-efficacy 15,16 . Several proximal family factors that are positively related to children’s language development have emerged from these studies 11,12,13,14,15,16 , including the quality of talk between parents and children, mothers’ use of scaffolding, and maternal sensitivity. Expanding upon these established findings, one of the objectives of this study was to measure the impact of more global family factors (e.g., supportiveness and cohesion among family members, and organization and control in the home) on known areas of difficulty in children with cochlear implants (e.g., language and executive function).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental Effects of Family Environment on Outcomes in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Holt¹,

Beer²,

Kronenberger³

et al. 2013

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine and compare the family environment of preschool- and school-age children with cochlear implants and assess its influence on children’s executive function and spoken language skills. Study Design Retrospective between-subjects design. Setting Outpatient research laboratory. Patients Prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants and no additional disabilities, and their families. Intervention(s) Cochlear implantation and speech-language therapy. Main Outcome Measures Parents completed the Family Environment Scale and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (or the preschool version). Children were tested using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4 and either the Preschool Language Scales-4 or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–4. Results The family environments of children with cochlear implants differed from normative data obtained from hearing children, but average scores were within one standard deviation of norms on all subscales. Families of school-age children reported higher levels of control than those of preschool-age children. Preschool-age children had fewer problems with emotional control when families reported higher levels of support and lower levels of conflict. School-age children had fewer problems with inhibition but more problems with shifting of attention when families reported lower levels of conflict. School-age children’s receptive vocabularies were enhanced by families with lower levels of control and higher levels of organization. Conclusions Family environment and its relation to language skills and executive function development differed across the age groups in this sample of children with cochlear implants. Because family dynamics is one developmental/environmental factor that can be altered with therapy and education, the present results have important clinical implications for family-based interventions for deaf children with cochlear implants.

show abstract

“…Yet, from research on parents of children with physical disabilities, like chronic illnesses, it is known that they treat children younger their age than parents of typically developing children [26]. Regarding sensitivity, research on very young DHH children (from infancy to early childhood) found parents of DHH children and parents of hearing children to be equally sensitive to their children's needs [27], [28], whereas other findings have implied parents of DHH children to be less sensitive [29]. The interpretation of these outcomes is not straightforward though.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Victimization Experienced by Children and Adolescents Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Victimization is a relatively common, yet serious problem, with potentially severe consequences for children's psychosocial and academic functioning. Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) may be at a higher risk for victimization than hearing children. The aims of the present study were to compare DHH and hearing children on i) self-reported experiences of victimization and ii) associations between victimization, parental- and child variables. In total 188 children (mean age 11;11 years) from the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking part of Belgium participated in the study. No difference between DHH and hearing children were found on general experiences of victimization. However, differences between the groups were found on specific forms of experienced victimization and on the associations between victimization and parental variables. For DHH children, parental sensitivity and parents who challenge their DHH children to become competent in the practical, emotional, cognitive and social domain is associated with them being less victimized. For hearing children at this age these relations were reversed, absent or more complex. Finally, DHH children in special schools were more victimized than DHH children in regular schools. It can be concluded that parents can play an important role in reducing social problems experienced by DHH children and young adolescents.

show abstract

The Effect of Hearing Impairment on the Quality of Attachment and Mother-Toddler Interaction

Cited by 58 publications

References 23 publications

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Contribution of Family Environment to Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users' Speech and Language Outcomes: Some Preliminary Findings

Developmental Effects of Family Environment on Outcomes in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Peer Victimization Experienced by Children and Adolescents Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About