Early language outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants under three years

50 %
50 %
Information about Early language outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants under...
Health & Medicine

Published on February 17, 2014

Author: glawrencehearingcrc

Source: slideshare.net

Description

As more cochlear implants are fitted in pre-verbal children, early language checklists and scales have been used to determine whether language is developing normally. Although research tends to support the validity of checklists as screening tools in normal hearing populations, their sensitivity in detecting pre-verbal children with significant hearing loss who require specialist intensive language training remains to be demonstrated. So that language intervention can take place at the earliest possible time, it is important to determine whether scales and checklists used for infants are correlated with, or even predictive of later vocabulary and language development in toddlers and pre-schoolers

Early Language Outcomes For Children Receiving Implants Under Three Years Shani Dettman2,3, Yien Ching Ang1, Jaime Leigh1,3, Jennifer Holland1,3, & Richard Dowell1,2,3 1. The University of Melbourne, Dept of Otolaryngology 2. The Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation 3. Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Objective Results for individual tests Increasing numbers of infants and young children are being diagnosed and referred to early intervention programs and implant centres as a result of widespread implementation of neonatal hearing screening programs and greater awareness and acceptance of cochlear implant efficacy. As more cochlear implants are fitted in preverbal children, early language checklists and scales have been used to determine whether language is developing normally. Although research tends to support the validity of checklists as screening tools in normal hearing populations, their sensitivity in detecting pre-verbal children with significant hearing loss who require specialist intensive language training remains to be demonstrated. CDI For the 24 children who completed This retrospective study examined language outcomes for 141 children who received their cochlear implant(s) at the Royal Eye and Ear Victorian Hospital, Melbourne Australia. There were 125 children with congenital hearing loss and 24 children who had a later onset of hearing loss with the mean onset of hearing loss being 0.16 years (range 0.00 to 2.40 yrs; SD 0.44). Children who had any evidence of progressive hearing loss were excluded from the study. The mean 3 frequency pure tone average was 113 dB HL (range 70 to 125 dB HL; SD 11.45) for the better ear. The mean age at diagnosis was 10 months with mean age of hearing aid fitting at 1.01 years (range 0.10 to 2.60 yrs; SD 0.52) and mean age at cochlear implantation at 1.75 years (range 0.53 to 2.98; SD 0.62). The speech processing strategies included ACE or SPEAK with Sprint, ESPrit 3G or Freedom speech processors. The mean duration of cochlear implant experience was 2.73 years (range -1.58 to 11.85 yrs; SD 2.55). Children were included if they had a fully functional current speech processing device, no significant oro-motor dysfunction, English as the predominant language used at home, and used a communication mode with either aural/oral (n=101) or sign emphasis (n=36) at home or at school. There were four children where the classification of communication mode was unknown. Most of the children (n=102) had average cognitive ability as assessed by an Educational Psychologist. Any children with poorer than ‘borderline average’ cognitive skills (n=8) were excluded. Correlation between child demographic/developmental variables and language outcomes As may be expected, the age at which a child received hearing aids was correlated with the age at cochlear implant surgery (r = 0.53; p<0.001), and general device experience effects were seen. That is, greater experience with the device was associated with better outcomes for the RI-TLS (r = 0.715; p<0.001) and PPVT (r = 0.774; p<0.001) respectively. Significant correlations between the child’s chronological age at the time of language testing and the RI-TLS equivalent age (r = 0.574; p<0.001) and the PPVT equivalent age (r = 0.775; p<0.001) suggest that language performance improves over time. Of greater interest to this study were the relationships between communication mode and language outcomes. Results from all three language measures were poorer for children enrolled in programs with sign emphasis versus oral/aural emphasis. Significant correlations were found between sign communication used at home/school and the RI-TLS (r = 0.369; p<0.001), CDI (r = 0.640; p<0.001) and PPVT (r = 0.198; p<0.001). This result is complicated by the finding that communication mode at school was also correlated (r = 0.19; p<0.001) with the cognitive status of the children. Taken together, results suggest that children with borderline and low average cognitive skills were more likely to be found in early intervention programs with sign emphasis and were more likely to demonstrate greater language delays. There was a significant relationship between the age at receiving the cochlear implant and the degree of delay on the RI-TLS (r = 0.650; p<0.001) and PPVT (r = 0.431; p<0.001). Similarly, duration of profound hearing loss was significantly associated with the degree of delay on the RI-TLS (r = 0.569; p<0.001 and PPVT (r = 0. 404; p<0.001). These results support the ‘earlier is better’ argument regarding the use of cochlear implants for infants with significant hearing loss. For the 89 children who had two or more PPVT measures, the EA was 3.85 (range 1.80 to 11.40; SD 1.88) and the average growth RATE was 0.93 (range -0.23 to 3.60; SD 0.62)(Figure 2 below). Mean slope = 0.93 14 6.00 Mean slope = 0.82 5.00 4.00 3.00 12 10 8 6 4 2 2.00 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Chronological age (years) 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Chronological Age (years) Subjects completed the PPVT, the EA was 3.77 years (range 1.80 to 11.40 yrs; SD 1.80). The average DELAY was 2.34 years (range -1.90 to 8.00; SD 1.51). Equivalent Language Age (years) This study examined the validity, clinical utility and RI-TLS n=92 71 correlation of two infant checklists (Rossetti Infant – PPVT n=118 Toddler Language Scale [RI-TLS; n=92] and the 10 Child Development Inventory [CDI; n=24]), 22 13 against a formal receptive vocabulary measure; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test of Receptive Language [PPVT; n=118] for children receiving cochlear implants CDI n=24 under three years of age. RI-TLS For the 92 children who completed the RI-TLS, the EA was 0.78 years (range 0.00 to 3.00 yrs; SD 0.82). The average DELAY was 1.40 years (range -0.47 to 6.46 yrs; SD 0.94). For the 66 children who completed two or more RI-TLS, the EA was 0.79 years (range 0.00 to 3.00 yrs; SD 0.83) and the average growth RATE was 0.82 (range 0.00 to 2.43; SD 0.54) (Figure 1 below). PPVT For the 118 children who Figure 1. Individual growth rates for 66 children who Figure 2. Individual growth rates for 89 children who completed two or more administrations of the PPVT completed two or more administrations of the RI –TLS. Results across the three language tests Significant correlations were found between the degree of delay measured by the PPVT and RI-TLS (n=71; r = 0.792; p<0.001), PPVT and CDI (n=13; r = 0.792; p<0.05) and RI-TLS and CDI (n=22; r = 0.852; p<0.001). 6.00 For the 10 children who completed all three language assessments, the average Language growth RATE was 0.90 (range 0.50 to 1.50; SD 0.36)(Figure 3 right). Equivalent Language Age (years) Study Design the CDI, the Equivalent Age (EA) was 1.82 years (range 1.00 to 4.00 yrs; SD 0.75). The average DELAY was 0.93 years (range -2.38 to 3.91yrs; SD 1.45). Equivalent Language Age (years) So that language intervention can take place at the earliest possible time, it is important to determine whether scales and checklists used for infants are correlated with, or even predictive of later vocabulary and language development in toddlers and pre-schoolers. Results for individual tests 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Chronological Age (years) To estimate the degree of PPVT delay from RI–TLS delay and CDI delay, the regression equations were as follows; PPVT delay = 0.46 + 0.70 RI –TLS delay (R2 = 0.63) PPVT delay = -0.33 + 1.21 CDI delay (R2 = 0.63) The results of the regression analyses suggested a significant relationship between the PPVT delay and the RI-TLS delay and CDI delay. The R2 values indicated that approximately 63% of the variance in the PPVT delay was predicted by either the RITLS delay or the CDI delay. Summary and Conclusions From this study, the children who received cochlear implants before the age of three years demonstrated a RI-TLS language growth rate and PPVT language growth rate of 0.82 and 0.93 respectively. Normal hearing children demonstrate a growth rate of 1.00, so these results for children with congenital and early onset profound hearing loss are quite promising. Results suggested that the infant checklists (RI-TLS and CDI) were well correlated with the receptive vocabulary test (PPVT). Children using cochlear implants, who demonstrated some degree of delay on the CDI or RI-TLS, would also be likely to demonstrate delays on the PPVT. The CDI and RI-TLS are quite useful to monitor language development in very young children with profound hearing loss and are appropriate for clinicians to use when providing feedback to parents. Clinicians can use these checklists to help parents form realistic expectations and plan appropriate language goals for children with significant hearing loss. Acknowledgements to Children and Families, Speech Pathologists, Audiologists, Surgeons & Administration Staff of the Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Victoria, Australia. dettmans@unimelb.edu.au

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Speech perception, production and language outcomes for ...

language outcomes for children who receive cochlear implants under ... outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants ... Language Outcomes: ...
Read more

Spoken Language Development in Children Receiving Cochlear ...

Spoken Language Development in Children Receiving Cochlear Implants. ... cochlear implants under 2.5 years ... early intervention. Spoken language ...
Read more

Cochlear Implants - report.nih.gov

in the last thirty years is the cochlear ... normally starts to acquire speech and language skills. Children ... are receiving two cochlear implants, ...
Read more

Hearing Solutions - Cochlear™ - Pediatric Journey

Hearing solutions for your child. ... Spoken language development in children ... et al. Language development in young children with cochlear implants.
Read more

The predictive value of measures of preverbal ...

... in young deaf children with cochlear implants. ... of 17 children receiving multichannel cochlear implants under the ... Three years after ...
Read more

Early intervention and assessment of speech and language ...

Early intervention and assessment of speech and ... were receiving cochlear implants at 2 years of ... and language outcomes in children with cochlear ...
Read more

Children With Cochlear Implants and Complex Needs: A ...

... the number of children receiving cochlear implants ... language outcomes of children with cochlear ... children, that is, those under 2 years ...
Read more

Cochlear Implants in Children: A Review - InTech

Cochlear Implants in Children: ... For many years, cochlear implantation in children was opposed by the Deaf ... outcomes with cochlear implants, ...
Read more

Maximizing language skills in children with cochlear implants

Maximizing language skills in children with cochlear implants Paula Brown, PhD Cathy Quenin, PhD. Nazareth College of Rochester
Read more