Language understanding and vocabulary of early cochlear implanted children

Percy-Smith, Lone; Busch, Georg; Sandahl, Minna; Nissen, Lena; Josvassen, Jane Lignel; Lange, Theis; Rusch, Ea; Cayé‐Thomasen, Per

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.10.014

Cited by 41 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…46 the UK, 47 and Denmark. 48 Three studies 44,46,47 were conducted specifically to examine whether signs added to spoken language intervention (sign + oral) improved outcomes. The remaining studies evaluated hearing technology or provided data about language intervention as 1 of several predictor variables in the analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49 All 4 studies included only children with cochlear implants. 39,42,46,48 The 2 US studies 39,42 were conducted in 1999 to 2000 and therefore included children implanted in the early years of cochlear implant availability. These studies reported no significant effect of intervention (communication mode).…”

Section: Language Results: Vocabularymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third study 46 reported standard scores from a Spanish version of the test, with no statistical difference between groups. One additional Danish study 48 used a translated version of the PPVT with American norms. In that study, authors did not report scores separately by group but concluded that not using total communication was 1 factor associated with greater odds of age-equivalent receptive vocabulary.…”

Section: Language Results: Vocabularymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Danish study 48 examined expressive vocabulary using a Danish normreferenced test but found no effect of intervention mode. The US preschool study 32 found that expressive vocabulary results favored oral intervention only for late-identified children (>12 months) and showed no significant effects of intervention for early-identified children (<6 months).…”

Section: Language Results: Vocabularymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1 study, Spanish test versions (which authors reported as validated) were administered. 46 Danish test adaptations 48 were used with American norms in another study except for the expressive vocabulary test, which was developed and standardized in Danish. As noted in Table 1, tests were administered in the child's preferred modality (sign or spoken language) in 4 studies 39,40,42,43 or with adaptations (for 1 test) in 1 study, 32 and responses were accepted in sign and/or spoken language in another.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT: Permanent hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and interferes with typical communication development. Early detection through newborn hearing screening and hearing technology provide most children with the option of spoken language acquisition. However, no consensus exists on optimal interventions for spoken language development. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of early sign and oral language intervention compared with oral language intervention only for children with permanent hearing loss.DATA SOURCES: An a priori protocol was developed. Electronic databases (eg, Medline, Embase, CINAHL) from 1995 to June 2013 and gray literature sources were searched. Studies in English and French were included. STUDY SELECTION:Two reviewers screened potentially relevant articles. DATA EXTRACTION:Outcomes of interest were measures of auditory, vocabulary, language, and speech production skills. All data collection and risk of bias assessments were completed and then verified by a second person. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to judge the strength of evidence. RESULTS:Eleven cohort studies metinclusion criteria, of which 8 included only children with severe to profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. Language development was the most frequently reported outcome. Other reported outcomes included speech and speech perception.LIMITATIONS: Several measures and metrics were reported across studies, and descriptions of interventions were sometimes unclear.CONCLUSIONS: Very limited, and hence insufficient, high-quality evidence exists to determine whethersign language in combination with oral language is more effective than oral language therapy alone. More research is needed to supplement the evidence base. Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; b Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; c Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; d Translational Research in Biomedicine Graduate Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; f Consultant, Moncton, New Brunswick; g Audiology Clinic, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and h Voice for Hearing-Impaired Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dr Fitzpatrick conceptualized the project, fi nalized the protocol, was involved in all stages of the analysis and interpretation, wrote the fi rst draft of this manuscript, and is the study guarantor; Ms Hamel and Ms Pratt were involved in screening articles and extracted data; Ms Hamel conducted the quality assessment; Ms Hamel, Ms Pratt, Ms Stevens, and Dr Moher provided input into the fi nal manuscript; Ms Stevens contributed to the development of the methods, oversaw the screening, Early detection of permanent childhood hearing loss through population-based newborn screening has become standard care in much of the world. Expectations are that early intervention through hearing technolog...

show abstract