Caregiver Experiences With Oral Bilingualism in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing in the United States: Impact on Child Language Proficiency

PURPOSE

Best practices recommend promoting the use of the home language and allowing caregivers to choose the language(s) that they want to use with their child who is deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). We examined whether Spanish-speaking caregivers of children who are DHH receive professional recommendations on oral bilingualism that follow best practices. We also assessed whether professional recommendations, caregiver beliefs, and language practices had an impact on child language(s) proficiency.

METHOD

Sixty caregivers completed a questionnaire on demographic questions, language(s) use and recommendations, beliefs on bilingualism, and child language proficiency measures in English, Spanish, and American Sign Language (ASL). Professional recommendations on oral bilingualism were reported descriptively, and linear regression was used to identify the predictors of child language(s) proficiency.

RESULTS

We found that only 23.3% of the caregivers were actively encouraged to raise their child orally bilingual. Language practices predicted child proficiency in each language (English, Spanish, and ASL), but professional recommendations and caregiver beliefs did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that most caregivers received recommendations that do not follow current best practices. Professional training is still needed to promote bilingualism and increase cultural competence when providing services to caregivers who speak languages different from English.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21644846.

Characterizing North Carolina's Deaf and Hard of Hearing Infants and Toddlers: Predictors of Vocabulary, Diagnosis, and Intervention

PURPOSE

This study sought to (a) characterize the demographic, audiological, and intervention variability in a population of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children receiving state services for hearing loss; (b) identify predictors of vocabulary delays; and (c) evaluate factors influencing the success and timing of early identification and intervention efforts at a state level.

METHOD

One hundred DHH infants and toddlers (aged 4-36 months) enrolled in early intervention completed the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories, and detailed information about their audiological and clinical history was collected. We examined the influence of demographic, clinical, and audiological factors on vocabulary outcomes and early intervention efforts.

RESULTS

We found that this sample showed spoken language vocabulary delays (production) relative to hearing peers and showed room for improvement in rates of early diagnosis and intervention. These delays in vocabulary and early support services were predicted by an overlapping subset of hearing-, health-, and home-related variables.

CONCLUSIONS

In a diverse sample of DHH children receiving early intervention, we identify variables that predict delays in vocabulary and early support services, which reflected both dimensions that are immutable, and those that clinicians and caretakers can potentially alter. We provide a discussion on the implications for clinical practice.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19449839.

Frequency of Early Intervention Sessions and Vocabulary Skills in Children with Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND

A primary goal of early intervention is to assist children in achieving age-appropriate language skills. The amount of intervention a child receives is ideally based on his or her individual needs, yet it is unclear if language ability impacts amount of intervention and/or if an increased frequency of intervention sessions results in better outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the frequency of early intervention sessions and vocabulary outcomes in young children with hearing loss.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal study of 210 children 9 to 36 months of age with bilateral hearing loss living in 12 different states. Expressive vocabulary skills were evaluated using the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories.

RESULTS

A higher number of intervention sessions reported at the first assessment predicted better vocabulary scores at the second assessment, and more sessions reported at the second assessment predicted better scores at the third assessment. For each increase in the number of sessions reported, there was a corresponding, positive increase in vocabulary quotient. In contrast, children's vocabulary ability at an earlier time point did not predict intervention session frequency at a later point in time.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant prospective effect was apparent with more therapy sessions resulting in improved vocabulary scores 9 months later. These findings underscore the importance of early intervention. Pediatricians and other health care professionals can help apply these findings by counseling parents regarding the value of frequent and consistent participation in early intervention.

Is Oral Bilingualism an Advantage for Word Learning in Children With Hearing Loss?

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether oral bilingualism could be an advantage for children with hearing loss when learning new words. Method Twenty monolingual and 13 bilingual children with hearing loss were compared with each other and with 20 monolingual and 20 bilingual children with normal hearing on receptive vocabulary and on three word-learning tasks containing nonsense words in familiar (English and Spanish) and unfamiliar (Arabic) languages. We measured word learning on the day of the training and retention the next day using an auditory recognition task. Analyses of covariance were used to compare performance on the word learning tasks by language group (monolingual vs. bilingual) and hearing status (normal hearing vs. hearing loss), controlling for age and maternal education. Results No significant differences were observed between monolingual and bilingual children with and without hearing loss in any of the word-learning task. Children with hearing loss performed more poorly than their hearing peers in Spanish word retention and Arabic word learning and retention. Conclusions Children with hearing loss who grew up being exposed to Spanish did not show higher or lower word-learning abilities than monolingual children with hearing loss exposed to English only. Therefore, oral bilingualism was neither an advantage nor a disadvantage for word learning. Hearing loss negatively affected performance in monolingual and bilingual children when learning words in languages other than English (the dominant language). Monolingual and bilingual children with hearing loss are equally at risk for word-learning difficulties and vocabulary size matters for word learning.