Investigating Use of a Parent Report Tool to Measure Vocabulary Development in Deaf Greek-speaking Children with Cochlear Implants

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to the parents of the CI children who participated in the study. 2 AbstractObjective: There are very few measures of language development in spoken Greek that can be used with young deaf children. This study investigated the use of CYLEX, a receptive and expressive vocabulary assessment based on parent report that has recently been adapted to Standard Greek, to measure the vocabulary development of deaf Greekspeaking children with cochlear implants.Design: A Standard Greek version of CYLEX was used to collect data on receptive and expressive vocabulary development from parents of 13 deaf children with cochlear implants aged between 21 to 71 months. These data were compared with data collected previously from typically developing hearing Greek-speaking children.Results: Use of the test by parents of deaf children was found to be reliable. No correlation was found between children's vocabulary scores and chronological age. A positive correlation was however found between children's post-implant age and expressive vocabulary. The vocabulary skills of implanted children with a mean post-implant age of 20 months were not significantly different from those of typically developing hearing children of similar chronological age.Conclusion: CYLEX is a reliable and useful tool for exploring vocabulary development with this clinical group. Findings confirm the results of other studies in indicating that the vocabulary size of implanted preschool-aged deaf children is related to the amount of time that children have used their implant, rather than chronological age.

The relation between short-term memory and vocabulary skills in Greek children with cochlear implants: The role of hearing experience

“…Since performance of children with CI on STM tasks has been shown to vary as a function of the spoken language they are acquiring, i.e. Italian versus French (Guasti et al, 2014; Willems & Leybaert, 2009), it was considered important to investigate the relation between STM and language skills in Greek, as this group of children with CI is a clinical population of interest in this region (Binos, Okalidou, Botinis, Kyriafinis, & Vital, 2013; Oktapoti et al, 2016). Second, the present study compared the performance of CI children with two different control groups: one with a group of CA controls and the other with a group of younger NH controls (matched in hearing experience to children with CI).…”

“…Fagan and Pisoni's (2010) study highlighted an important factor for future research, namely, to examine whether the scores of children with CI match the scores of younger hearing children whose age is similar to the post-implant age of implanted children. Moreover, in a Greek study examining the vocabulary development of Greek children with CI using a parent report tool, the researchers concluded that the vocabulary size of implanted pre-school-aged deaf children is related to their postimplant age, rather than their chronological age (Oktapoti et al, 2016).…”

Deaf Children of Hearing Parents Have Age-Level Vocabulary Growth When Exposed to American Sign Language by 6 Months of Age

“…4,5,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] With few exceptions, 54,55 deaf and hard of hearing children generally have smaller spoken English vocabularies than age-matched hearing peers. [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] ASL exposure seems to be a more reliable means of developing age-expected vocabularies than interventions focused on spoken English.…”

Meta-Analytic Findings on Reading in Children With Cochlear Implants

“…Comparison groups were not age-matched 2 Comparison groups were not age-matched 3 (Fitzpatrick et al, 2012) Comparison groups were not age-matched 4 (Harris et al, 2017) Comparison groups were not age-matched 5 (Jung, 2015) Comparison groups were not age-matched 6 (Oktapoti et al, 2016) Comparison groups were not age-matched 7 Comparison groups were not age-matched 8 (Connor & Zwolan, 2004) No comparison group 9 No comparison group 10 (Geers & Hayes, 2011) No comparison group 11 No comparison group 12 (Lu et al, 2013) No comparison group 13 (Spencer et al, 1997) No comparison group 14 (Tomblin et al, 2000) No comparison group Authors indicated data unavailable 38 (Dominguez et al, 2019) No response from authors 39 (Iwasaki et al, 2012) No response from authors 40 (Lyxell et al, 2008) No response from authors 41 (Lyxell et al, 2011) No response from authors 42 (Mey et al, 2019) No response from authors 43 No response from authors Supplementary )−Reading comprehension )−Word−level reading )−Phonics )−Vocabulary )−Sample2−Reading comprehension )−Sample2−Word−level reading )−Sample2−Phonics )−Sample2−Vocabulary (Ching, 2015)−PA (Ching, 2015)−Vocabulary (Asker−Árnason, 2015)−Reading comprehension (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−PA (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−Reading comprehension (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−Word−level reading (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−Word−level reading2 (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−Word−level reading3 (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−Word−level reading4 (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−PA2 (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−PA3 (Nittrouer, 2012(Nittrouer, −2015−PA4…”