Measuring “Language Access Profiles” in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children With the DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool

Abstract

Purpose The purposes of this study were (a) to introduce “language access profiles” as a viable alternative construct to “communication mode” for describing experience with language input during early childhood for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children; (b) to describe the development of a new tool for measuring DHH children's language access profiles during infancy and toddlerhood; and (c) to evaluate the novelty, reliability, and validity of this tool. Method We adapted an existing retrospective parent report measure of early language experience (the Language Exposure Assessment Tool) to make it suitable for use with DHH populations. We administered the adapted instrument (DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool [D-LEAT]) to the caregivers of 105 DHH children aged 12 years and younger. To measure convergent validity, we also administered another novel instrument: the Language Access Profile Tool. To measure test–retest reliability, half of the participants were interviewed again after 1 month. We identified groups of children with similar language access profiles by using hierarchical cluster analysis. Results The D-LEAT revealed DHH children's diverse experiences with access to language during infancy and toddlerhood. Cluster analysis groupings were markedly different from those derived from more traditional grouping rules (e.g., communication modes). Test–retest reliability was good, especially for the same-interviewer condition. Content, convergent, and face validity were strong. Conclusions To optimize DHH children's developmental potential, stakeholders who work at the individual and population levels would benefit from replacing communication mode with language access profiles. The D-LEAT is the first tool that aims to measure this novel construct. Despite limitations that future work aims to address, the present results demonstrate that the D-LEAT represents progress over the status quo.

Comparing the semantic networks of children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing: Effects of length of language access

“…All these factors likely influence the language environment of the child. As a study by Hall and De Anda (2021) shows, the language access profiles of children with CI can differ tremendously. However, as only one verbal fluency task was used in the current study it was not possible to compute individual networks in order to correlate them with other variables such as the language access profile.…”

Assessing Parent Behaviours in Parent–Child Interactions with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Infants Aged 0–3 Years: A Systematic Review

“…Following this systematic review, we make the following recommendations for future research on PCI and deafness: Provide full details with regard to participant information, for both the child and their parents including level of deafness, amplification use, child communication profile and parent-to-child communication profile (see ‘Language Access Profiles’ from Hall [ 113 ]). Report all methodological details of parent–child interaction assessment including who filmed the PCI, location of the assessment, instructions given to parents, length of the recording and length of film analysed.…”

“…Provide full details with regard to participant information, for both the child and their parents including level of deafness, amplification use, child communication profile and parent-to-child communication profile (see ‘Language Access Profiles’ from Hall [ 113 ]).…”

Assessments of Sign Language Development

“…A separate concern with many assessments developed so far is that included DHH children are grouped by communication mode or educational programme, with very little information provided about the individual language experience of each child (Hall & De Anda, 2021). DHH people are exposed to various ways of communicating and develop their own individual semiotic repertoires based on these experiences in order to interact with others around them; in essence, they adopt translanguaging practices on a daily basis (De Meulder et al, 2017;Kusters et al, 2017).…”