Language development in deaf or hard-of-hearing children with additional disabilities: type matters!

BACKGROUND: This study examined language development in young children with hearing loss and different types of additional disabilities (ADs). METHOD: A population-based cohort of 67 children who were enrolled in the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment study took part. Language ability was directly assessed at 3 and 5 years of age using the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Standard scores were used to enable comparison with age-based expectations for typically developing children. RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed that, across the total cohort, children's language scores remained stable over the 2-year period. However, this overall stability masked a significant difference between children with different types of ADs; in particular, children with autism, cerebral palsy and/or developmental delay showed a decline in standard scores, whereas children with other disabilities showed a relative improvement. In addition, larger improvements in receptive vocabulary were associated with use of oral communication only. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that type of AD can be used to gauge expected language development in the population of children with hearing loss and ADs when formal assessment of cognitive ability is not feasible.

Predicting 3-year outcomes of early-identified children with hearing impairment.

UNLABELLED: PROBLEM/OBJECTIVES: Permanent childhood hearing loss has major negative impacts on children's health and development. To improve outcomes, universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) has been implemented widely. However, high-quality evidence on its efficacy was lacking. To address this evidence gap, we conducted the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study to directly compare outcomes of early- and late-identified children. This paper investigates whether early performance measured shortly after initial amplification predicts language development at 3 years of age. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective, population-based study. We assessed outcomes at 6- and 12-months after amplification, and then at 3 and 5 years of age. Main outcome measures included directly-assessed language, receptive vocabulary, speech production; and parent-reported functional performance in everyday life. A range of demographic and audiological information was also collected at evaluation intervals. RESULTS: About 450 children participated, and 3-year outcomes scores were available for 356 participants. Multiple regression analysis revealed that early language scores or functional performance ratings were significant predictors of 3-year outcomes. Other significant predictors included the presence or absence of additional disabilities, severity of hearing loss, and age at cochlear implant activation. CONCLUSIONS: Early performance, either directly-assessed language ability (PLS-4) or parent-reported functional ratings (PEACH), were significant predictors of 3-year outcomes; along with presence or absence of additional disabilities, severity of hearing loss, and age at CI activation. Earlier implantation is possible with early detection of hearing loss via UNHS. Monitoring performance after initial amplification allows preventive strategies to be implemented early to improve outcomes.

Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review.

There are now many recipients of unilateral cochlear implants who have usable residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. To avoid auditory deprivation and to provide binaural hearing, a hearing aid or a second cochlear implant can be fitted to that ear. This article addresses the question of whether better binaural hearing can be achieved with binaural/bimodal fitting (combining a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears) or bilateral implantation. In the first part of this article, the rationale for providing binaural hearing is examined. In the second part, the literature on the relative efficacy of binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation is reviewed. Most studies on comparing either mode of bilateral stimulation with unilateral implantation reported some binaural benefits in some test conditions on average but revealed that some individuals benefited, whereas others did not. There were no controlled comparisons between binaural/bimodal fitting and bilateral implantation and no evidence to support the efficacy of one mode over the other. In the third part of the article, a crossover trial of two adults who had binaural/bimodal fitting and who subsequently received a second implant is reported. The findings at 6 and 12 months after they received their second implant indicated that binaural function developed over time, and the extent of benefit depended on which abilities were assessed for the individual. In the fourth and final parts of the article, clinical issues relating to candidacy for binaural/ bimodal fitting and strategies for bimodal fitting are discussed with implications for future research.