Performance of Indian Children with Cochlear Implant on PEACH Scale

Abstract

This study compares the functional language performance of Tamil-speaking children (n = 30) who received a cochlear implant (CI) before 2 years of age (earlier implanted group: EIG) and between 3 and 4 years of age (later implanted group: LIG). Everyday functional language of children was evaluated by interviewing parents using the adapted Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) Questionnaire in Tamil language. On average, both groups of children had difficulties in everyday language functioning. However, functional results of EIG were better than those of LIG. In addition significant correlations were found between age at intervention and PEACH score. The evidence lends support to early intervention increasing the functional performance of the children fitted with CI. PEACH can be a clinically feasible evaluation tool to implement in practice for clinicians to obtain meaningful information regarding children's auditory performance in real life at childhood.

Barriers to Rehabilitation Care in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

“…14 It was developed to test the effectiveness of auditory rehabilitation in everyday life, as traditional language testing in a structured environment may not reflect a child’s real world ability. 15 The PEACH survey has been correlated with the Preschool Language Scale (PLS-4), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP), and Child Development Inventory (CDI), 16 and has been deemed a reliable measure of parental observations. 14, 17 This survey requires healthy children that are using a functional implant at the time of survey.…”

Cultural adaptation and translation of PEACH scale in Telugu language: Applicability in assessing auditory and communication skills of children with cochlear implant

“…While, several studies have reported that children who receive CI at a very younger age are expected to attain superior speech and language skills than children who receive CI at a later age [10,16,17], there was no significant difference noticed in terms of auditory and communicative performance between children who received CI in the age range of 2 to 3 years (EIG) and children who received CI in the age range of 4 to 5 years (LIG) in the present study. Although the children of LIG received CI in the age range of 4 to 5 years, they had 2 to 3 years of pre-implant intervention with HAs, in addition to 5 to 6 years of post-implant CI use.…”

“…Several questionnaires and/or inventories have been developed for evaluating children's auditory related skills and the relative effectiveness of their hearing devices [8]. The necessity of including wider outcome measures, especially the parental reports while assessing the outcomes of children with CI has been emphasized [9][10][11]. Based on the high grades received in a critical review of subjective outcome evaluation questionnaires, the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale [8] was found one of the more appropriate [5].…”

“…Age of implantation which is the age at which a child receives CI seems to be one of the most important variables to predict speech and language outcomes. Although, several studies have reported that children who receive CI at a very younger age are expected to achieve greater speech and language skills than children who receive CI at a later age [10,[14][15][16][17], some studies have reported otherwise [18][19][20][21]. Therefore, still there is nonalignment on whether children who receive CI at an earlier age only have greater potential in achieving higher linguistic competence than children who receive CI at a later age.…”

Comparison of Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication Between Deaf Children with no Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Children 12-24 Months After Cochlear Implantation

“…There are some studies based on the exploring of CI outcomes. The views of parents on CI and the parents' expectation from children using CI, was based on the parent questionnaire (Kumar et al, 2013;Kumar et al, 2017;Archbold et al, 2008). In these studies, parents completed the questionnaire and their responses were analyzed.…”