Improving Spoken Language Outcomes for Children With Hearing Loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. e13-e19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Impact of Meeting Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Benchmarks on Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 105381512110252
Author(s):  
Brittany Grey ◽  
Elizabeth K. Deutchki ◽  
Emily A. Lund ◽  
Krystal L. Werfel
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Predictive Role ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Unique Predictor

This study compared preschool spoken language outcomes for children with hearing loss who met the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) guidelines to those who did not, as well as compared outcomes for those who met the current EHDI guidelines to those who met the earlier benchmarks. Finally, the predictive role of meeting each component of the guidelines was evaluated relative to language outcomes. Children who met the EHDI guidelines had higher language scores than those who did not; however, there was no difference between children who met the current guidelines and those who met the earlier benchmarks. Entering early intervention by 6 months of age was the only unique predictor of spoken language outcomes. The findings suggest that EHDI programs should target increasing the number of children with hearing loss who meet the current 1-3-6 benchmarks with a particular focus on enrollment in early intervention by 6 months.

The Colorado Journey Towards Optimal Outcomes for Children With Hearing Loss

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Yoshinaga-Itano
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Diverse Population ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Maternal Bonding ◽  
Level Of Education ◽  
Optimal Outcomes ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Abstract It is possible for children who are deaf or hard of hearing to attain language development comparable to their hearing peers, but these outcomes are not guaranteed. The population of children with hearing loss is a diverse population and although the variable of the age of identification is less variable, there are numerous variables that could potentially and have historically impacted language outcomes of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Variables such as hearing loss, maternal level of education, and maternal bonding can overcome the benefits of earlier identification and intervention.

Does Access to Visual Input Inhibit Auditory Development for Children With Cochlear Implants? A Review of the Evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 10-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jena McDaniel ◽  
Stephen Camarata
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sensory Deprivation ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Visual Input ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Auditory Development ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Multisensory Input

Purpose We review the evidence for attenuating visual input during intervention to enhance auditory development and ultimately improve spoken language outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Background Isolating the auditory sense is a long-standing tradition in many approaches for teaching children with hearing loss. However, the evidence base for this practice is surprisingly limited and not straightforward. We review four bodies of evidence that inform whether or not visual input inhibits auditory development in children with cochlear implants: (a) audiovisual benefits for speech perception and understanding for individuals with typical hearing, (b) audiovisual integration development in children with typical hearing, (c) sensory deprivation and neural plasticity, and (d) audiovisual processing in individuals with hearing loss. Conclusions Although there is a compelling theoretical rationale for reducing visual input to enhance auditory development, there is also a strong theoretical argument supporting simultaneous multisensory auditory and visual input to potentially enhance outcomes in children with hearing loss. Despite widespread and long-standing practice recommendations to limit visual input, there is a paucity of evidence supporting this recommendation and no evidence that simultaneous multisensory input is deleterious to children with cochlear implants. These findings have important implications for optimizing spoken language outcomes in children with cochlear implants.

Outcomes for Children With HL: Effects of Age of ID, Sign Support, and Auditory Prosthesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Nittrouer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
List Type ◽  
Auditory Prosthesis ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Language Style ◽  
Language Input ◽  
Outcomes For Children

Abstract The purpose of the project reported here was to examine the effects of three independent variables on developmental outcomes for children with hearing loss (HL): age of identification of hearing loss, whether or not spoken language input was supported with signs and whether children used hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CI). Children with and without hearing loss were tested multiple times between 12 and 48 months of age, at their 6-month birthdays. Dependent variables were selected to examine all aspects of child development: receptive and expressive language, psychosocial components of personality, deleterious behaviors, adaptive behaviors, parental language style, and levels of parenting stress. Results support several main findings: None of the independent variables had any significant effect on any dependent variable unrelated to language. Mean levels of all language skills were delayed for all groups of children with HL, even those children identified at birth with only moderate losses that could be appropriately aided with HAs. For children with losses identified at birth, the use or nonuse of signs to support spoken language input did not affect language outcomes in the long run. Within the restricted range examined here, age of identification did not affect language outcomes, if children were not getting sign support; children with late-identified hearing loss receiving sign support were more delayed on all language measures than other children with HL. Regarding prosthesis, some experience using HAs was associated with better outcomes, even if children eventually received CIs. A parental language style that involved being very verbally responsive to the child's communicative attempts was strongly associated with positive language outcomes.

What Do We Want Them To Be When They Grow Up?

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-31
Author(s):  
Lyn Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Social Development ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Learning To Listen

Abstract Learning to listen and speak are well-established preludes for reading, writing, and succeeding in mainstream educational settings. Intangibles beyond the ubiquitous test scores that typically serve as markers for progress in children with hearing loss are embedded in descriptions of the educational and social development of four young women. All were diagnosed with severe-to-profound or profound hearing loss as toddlers, and all were fitted with hearing aids and given listening and spoken language therapy. Compiling stories across the life span provides insights into what we can be doing in the lives of young children with hearing loss.

Red Flags: Barriers to Listening and Spoken Language in Children with Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
Andrea Bell ◽  
K. Todd Houston
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Skill Acquisition ◽  
Dynamic Process ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Careful Monitoring ◽  
Auditory Development ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Family Centered

To ensure optimal auditory development for the acquisition of spoken language, children with hearing loss require early diagnosis, effective ongoing audiological management, well fit and maintained hearing technology, and appropriate family-centered early intervention. When these elements are in place, children with hearing loss can achieve developmental and communicative outcomes that are comparable to their hearing peers. However, for these outcomes to occur, clinicians—early interventionists, speech-language pathologists, and pediatric audiologists—must participate in a dynamic process that requires careful monitoring of countless variables that could impact the child's skill acquisition. This paper addresses some of these variables or “red flags,” which often are indicators of both minor and major issues that clinicians may encounter when delivering services to young children with hearing loss and their families.

Monitoring Progress for Children with Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-81
Author(s):  
Monica Weston ◽  
Karen F. Muñoz ◽  
Kristina Blaiser
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Standardized Measures ◽  
Word Structure ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Language Measures ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Purpose This study investigated average hours of daily hearing aid use and speech-language outcomes for children age 3 to 6 years of age with hearing loss. Method Objective measures of hearing aid use were collected via data logging. Speech and language measures included standardized measures GFTA-2, CELF Preschool-2 and additional item analyses for the word structure subtest CELF Preschool-2 and the GFTA-2. Results Hearing aid use was full time for 33% of the children (n=3; M=8.84 hours; Range: 2.9–12.1) at the beginning of the study, and for 78% at the end of the study (n=7; M=9.89 hours; Range 2.6–13.2). All participants demonstrated an improvement in articulation and language standard scores and percentiles however continued to demonstrate areas of weakness in sounds high-frequency in nature. Conclusions Through early identification and fitting, children gain access to speech sounds. Both standardized measures and individual language analysis should be used to identify and support children with hearing loss in language and subsequent literacy development.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF FAMILY INTERVENTION IN EARLY DETECTION OF CONGENITAL DEAFNESS: A CASE STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Alif Sholehen ◽  
Fajrinka Pralampito ◽  
Antonius Galih ◽  
Akbar Ghaus ◽  
Andi Airina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Family Intervention ◽  
Congenital Deafness ◽  
Congenital Hearing Loss ◽  
Her Family ◽  
Problem Detection ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Development Outcomes

Congenital deafness is a hearing loss disorder that occurs at birth and is one of the disorders that can cause complications when it is not treated.1 Children with hearing loss will face difficulties such as poor development outcomes, including poor speech and language skills and face difficulties with cognition and social-emotional interactions. Early intervention has been proven to be one of the most important factors leading to good outcomes for children with congenital hearing loss.2 This case study is intended to highlight the importance of early case detections, early interventions and how family support plays a crucial role in the development of children with hearing loss. With the support of her family, Ms. DRP has gone through several speech and hearing therapies since her surgery and has proven to have an above-average linguistic abilities, showing that early problem detection does not hinder the development and achievement of children with congenital hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document