"The Value of Individual Hearing Aids for Hard-of-Hearing Children." Book Review.

1946 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-189
Author(s):  
H. Meltzer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Hearing Children

Foundations of Language Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Infants

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-32
Author(s):  
Dani Levine ◽  
Daniela Avelar ◽  
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff ◽  
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek ◽  
Derek M. Houston
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Language Input ◽  
Hearing Children

Copious evidence indicates that, even in the first year of life, children’s language development is beginning and is impacted by a wide array of cognitive and social processes. The extent to which these processes are dependent on early language input is a critical concern for most deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children, who, unlike hearing children, are usually not immersed in a language-rich environment until effective interventions, such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, are implemented. Importantly, some cognitive and social processes are not dependent on the early availability of language input and begin to develop before children are fitted for hearing aids or cochlear implants. Interventions involving parent training may be helpful for enhancing social underpinnings of language and for maximizing DHH children’s language learning once effective hearing devices are in place. Similarly, cognitive training for DHH children may also provide benefit to bolster language development.

scholarly journals Η αντιληπτική λειτουργία παιδιών 8-13 ετών με προγλωσσική απώλεια ακοής

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Χρήστος Γεωργοκωστόπουλος ◽  
Μαρία Τζουριάδου
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Oral Communication ◽  
Main Method ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Language Communication ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Perceptual Function

In this study, we investigated the perceptual function of deaf/hard of hearing children. The sample of the study consisted of 58 pupils aged 8-13 years old (3rd-6th graders) with severe (60-90 db) or profound (90 db and above) neurosensory hearing loss – pre-lingual with or without cochlear implants. Children with co-morbidity (intellectual disabilities, syndromes, autism, motor disorders, etc.) and children with post-lingual deafness/hearing impairment were excluded. In order to investigate their perceptual function, the Perceptual Functionality Criterion was used. The results of the study show that deaf/hard of hearing participants exhibit a “sporadic” profile regarding the general perceptual functionality. In particular, the participants were found to perform similarly in terms of visual-perceptive skills, while there was one exception, i.e. their visual-motor skills were worse. Higher scores have been shown in the domain of kinesthetic and tactile perception and lower ones regarding vestigial perception, especially in terms of the sense of balance. In addition, the perceptual function was investigated among the cochlear implant participants and those with conventional hearing aids. The results showed no significant differences between the two groups regarding the perceptual function, although the visual perception was found to be significantly better among the users of conventional hearing aids relative to cochlear implant users. Finally, the perceptual function was investigated in terms of the main method of language/communication used. The data indicated that participants, regardless of whether they use sign language, total/bilingual or oral communication, performed roughly similarly on the test variables. Among the different types of main method of language/communication, statistically significant differences were absent, though regarding the visual and kinesthetic perception sign language users outperformed the users of oral communication.

Classroom Teachers' Knowledge of Hearing Disorders and Attitudes about Mainstreaming Hard-of-Hearing Children

1988 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick N. Martin ◽  
Mark E. Bernstein ◽  
John A. Daly ◽  
Janet P. Cody
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
Support Personnel ◽  
Hearing Disorders ◽  
Item Questionnaire ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Service Training ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Hearing Children

An 84-item questionnaire regarding knowledge of hearing disorders and attitudes about mainstreaming hard-of-hearing children was administered to 187 in-service teachers enrolled in graduate communications courses. Results indicated that teachers' knowledge of hearing disorders was quite limited. The consensus of the respondents was that they would prefer to teach hard-of-hearing students only if substantial support personnel and in-service training were available. Somewhat surprising was the fact that respondents did not consider the subject of hearing aids to be of great importance, but this was attributed to lack of information on the subject of amplification devices.

Measuring Phonological Awareness in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-young L. Webb ◽  
Amy R. Lederberg
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Early Literacy ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
School Year ◽  
Hearing Children

PurposeThis study evaluated psychometric properties of 2 phonological awareness (PA) tests normed for hearing children when used with deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children with functional hearing. It also provides an in-depth description of these children's PA.MethodOne hundred and eight DHH children (mean age = 63.3 months) with cochlear implants or hearing aids were assessed in the fall and spring of the school year. Sixty-three percent communicated only with spoken language; 37% communicated with both sign and speech. Examiners administered PA subtests from the Phonological Awareness Test—2 and the Test of Preschool Early Literacy, along with assessments of speech perception and early literacy.ResultsItem analyses indicated that both tests showed good psychometric properties (e.g., high item discriminations and internal consistencies). DHH children scored higher on subtests and items that measured words, rhymes, and syllables than those that assessed phonemes. Although subtest difficulty influenced the factor structure in the fall, spring PA was best characterized as a single factor. PA correlated concurrently and predictively with early literacy.ConclusionsThis study suggests that these 2 standardized tests are valid for use with DHH children with functional hearing. Although delayed, these children's PA was structurally similar to that of hearing children.

Impact of Primary Language and Insurance on Pediatric Hearing Health Care in a Multidisciplinary Clinic

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (4) ◽  
pp. 722-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke M. Su ◽  
Jason S. Park ◽  
Dylan K. Chan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
Public Insurance ◽  
Publicly Insured ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
To Receive ◽  
At Home

Objective This study aims to describe the effects of primary language and insurance status on care utilization among deaf or hard-of-hearing children under active otolaryngologic and audiologic care. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting Multidisciplinary hearing loss clinic at a tertiary center. Subjects and Methods Demographics, hearing loss data, and validated survey responses were collected from 206 patients aged 0 to 19 years. Two-sided t tests and χ2 tests were used to obtain descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. Results Of the sample, 52.4% spoke primarily English at home. Non-English-speaking children and families were less likely to receive psychiatric counseling (12.2% vs 35.2% in the English group, P < .001) and reported more difficulty obtaining educational interventions ( P = .016), and 68.9% had public insurance. Parents of publicly insured children were less likely to know the type or degree of their child’s hearing loss (56.9% vs 75.4%, P = .022), and these children were older on presentation to the clinic (8.5 vs 6.5 years of age, P = .01) compared to privately insured children. Publicly insured children were less likely to receive cochlear implants ( P = .046) and reported increased difficulty obtaining hearing aids ( P = .047). While all patients reported impairment in hearing-related quality of life, publicly insured children aged 2 to 7 years were more likely to perform below minimum thresholds on measures of auditory/oral functioning. Conclusion Even when under active care, deaf or hard-of-hearing children from families who do not speak English at home or with public insurance face more difficulty obtaining educational services, cochlear implants, and hearing aids. These findings represent significant disparities in access to necessary interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document