The lexical development of children with hearing impairment and associated factors

Penna, Letícia Macedo; Lemos, Stela Maris Aguiar; Alves, Cláudia Maria Coelho

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/201420130046

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children with HL may demonstrate deficits in spoken language, which could reflect inadequate amplification, inappropriately fit hearing aids, decreased hearing sensitivity, inadequate daily device use of hearing aids, or additional diagnoses (Berger 2011; Hewitt et al 2012; Madell et al 2019). Pediatric CI candidates show delayed spoken language milestones (e.g., later babbling onset, restricted receptive, and expressive vocabulary) compared with age-matched peers with typical hearing via both informal criterion-based measures and formal standardized measures (Niparko et al 2010; Penna et al 2014, 2015). In addition, children with HL show differences in grammar, social pragmatic skills, and figurative language on standardized measures (see Appendix F, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/EANDH/A884).…”

Section: Candidacy Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

Warner-Czyz¹,

Roland

Thomas

et al. 2022

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

This article summarizes the available evidence on pediatric cochlear implantation to provide current guidelines for clinical protocols and candidacy recommendations in the United States. Candidacy determination involves specification of audiologic and medical criteria per guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration. However, recommendations for a cochlear implant evaluation also should maintain flexibility and consider a child’s skill progression (i.e., month-for-month progress in speech, language, and auditory development) and quality of life with appropriately fit hearing aids. Moreover, evidence supports medical and clinical decisions based on other factors, including (a) ear-specific performance, which affords inclusion of children with asymmetric hearing loss and single-sided deafness as implant candidates; (b) ear-specific residual hearing, which influences surgical technique and device selection to optimize hearing; and (c) early intervention to minimize negative long-term effects on communication and quality of life related to delayed identification of implant candidacy, later age at implantation, and/or limited commitment to an audiologic rehabilitation program. These evidence-based guidelines for current clinical protocols in determining pediatric cochlear implant candidacy encourage a team-based approach focused on the whole child and the family system.

show abstract