Effects of Parents' Mealtime Conversation Techniques for Preschool Children With Hearing Loss Who Use Listening and Spoken Language

Assessing parent-child interaction with deaf and hard of hearing infants aged 0-3 years: An international multi-professional e-Delphi

INTRODUCTION

Most deaf babies are born to hearing families who do not yet have the skills to communicate effectively with their child. Adaptations to communication are important because the quality of parent-child interaction (PCI) predicts how a deaf child develops language. Teachers of Deaf children and Speech and Language Therapists support families with communication in the home. Currently, there are no assessments that appraise how a parent interacts with their deaf baby. Previous research has identified which parent behaviours and approaches are used in PCI assessments in research and practice. The current paper forms consensus on the core content and best practices of a new PCI tool for deaf children aged 0-3 years.

METHODS

An international sample of expert academics and practitioners (n = 83) were recruited to take part in a two-round modified electronic Delphi study. Participants were presented with 69 statements focusing on (i) which parent behaviours were important in assessment (ii) the methods to be used in PCI assessment. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five-point Likert scale and gave comments to support their response. Consensus was defined as >80% of participants rating the statement as a (4) 'highly important' or a (5) 'essential'. If consensus was not reached, participant comments were used to generate new statements which were rated in the second round. This project involved a patient and public involvement (PPI) group of hearing and deaf parents and professionals to design and guide the study.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved on 52 statements and ranged from 80-99%. A further six statements were additionally included. Within the 58 statements included, 36 were parent behaviours which centred on the parent's observation of, and response to, their child's behaviour and/or language. The remaining 22 statements focused on methods used in the assessment such as parents having their PCI filmed, parents having the opportunity to review the video and assess themselves alongside a professional, and parents being involved in subsequent goal setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This e-Delphi presented the parent behaviours and methods of assessment to be included in a new PCI tool for deaf children. Future co-production work and acceptability and feasibility testing are discussed.

"It doesn't matter if we're the most amazing professionals in the world…" A qualitative study of professionals' perspectives on parent-child interaction assessment with deaf infants

Introduction

Parent child interaction (PCI) is positively associated with deaf children's language development. However, there are no known, deaf-specific tools to observe how a parent interacts with their deaf child aged 0-3 years. Without a framework for professionals to use with families, it is unknown how professionals assess PCI, what they assess, why they assess, and how the assessment results relate to case management.

Methods

Eighteen hearing and deaf professionals, who work with deaf and hard of hearing infants aged 0-3 years and their families, attended online focus groups. The aim of the study was to gain insight into the professional assessment of PCI. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Findings

Six themes were generated from the dataset. Professionals discussed how central parents were in the support offered to families in the home, the importance of knowing and understanding the individual family, and accounting for and supporting parental wellbeing. Descriptions on how to administer a best practice PCI assessment included which parent behaviors to assess and how to make adaptations for different populations. Professionals shared how the assessment and review process could be used to inform and upskill parents through video reflection and goal setting.

Discussion

This study provides insight into the mechanisms and motivations for professionals assessing the interactive behaviors of parents who have deaf children aged 0-3. Professionals acknowledged that family life is multi-faceted, and that support is most meaningful to families when professionals worked with these differences and incorporated them into assessment, goal setting, and intervention plans.

Hearing Thresholds, Speech Recognition, and Audibility as Indicators for Modifying Intervention in Children With Hearing Aids

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine if traditional audiologic measures (e.g., pure-tone average, speech recognition) and audibility-based measures predict risk for spoken language delay in children who are hard of hearing (CHH) who use hearing aids (HAs). Audibility-based measures included the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), HA use, and auditory dosage, a measure of auditory access that weighs each child's unaided and aided audibility by the average hours of HA use per day. The authors also sought to estimate values of these measures at which CHH would be at greater risk for delayed outcomes compared with a group of children with typical hearing (CTH) matched for age and socioeconomic status, potentially signaling a need to make changes to a child's hearing technology or intervention plan.

DESIGN

The authors compared spoken language outcomes of 182 CHH and 78 CTH and evaluated relationships between language and audiologic measures (e.g., aided SII) in CHH using generalized additive models. They used these models to identify values associated with falling below CTH (by > 1.5 SDs from the mean) on language assessments, putting CHH at risk for language delay.

RESULTS

Risk for language delay was associated with aided speech recognition in noise performance (<59% phonemes correct, 95% confidence interval [55%, 62%]), aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII < 0.61, 95% confidence internal [.53,.68]), and auditory dosage (dosage < 6.0, 95% confidence internal [5.3, 6.7]) in CHH. The level of speech recognition in quiet, unaided pure-tone average, and unaided SII that placed children at risk for language delay could not be determined due to imprecise estimates with broad confidence intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support using aided SII, aided speech recognition in noise measures, and auditory dosage as tools to facilitate clinical decision-making, such as deciding whether changes to a child's hearing technology are warranted. Values identified in this article can complement other metrics (e.g., unaided hearing thresholds, aided speech recognition testing, language assessment) when considering changes to intervention, such as adding language supports, making HA adjustments, or referring for cochlear implant candidacy evaluation.

Acquisition of turn-taking in sign language conversations: An overview of language modality and turn structure

The task of transitioning from one interlocutor to another in conversation – taking turns – is a complex social process, but typically transpires rapidly and without incident in conversations between adults. Cross-linguistic similarities in turn timing and turn structure have led researchers to suggest that it is a core antecedent to human language and a primary driver of an innate “interaction engine.” This review focuses on studies that have tested the extent of turn timing and turn structure patterns in two areas: across language modalities and in early language development. Taken together, these two lines of research offer predictions about the development of turn-taking for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) acquiring sign languages. We introduce considerations unique to signed language development – namely the heterogenous ecologies in which signed language acquisition occurs, suggesting that more work is needed to account for the diverse circumstances of language acquisition for DHH children. We discuss differences between early sign language acquisition at home compared to later sign language acquisition at school in classroom settings, particularly in countries with national sign languages. We also compare acquisition in these settings to communities without a national sign language where DHH children acquire local sign languages. In particular, we encourage more documentation of naturalistic conversations between DHH children who sign and their caregivers, teachers, and peers. Further, we suggest that future studies should consider: visual/manual cues to turn-taking and whether they are the same or different for child or adult learners; the protracted time-course of turn-taking development in childhood, in spite of the presence of turn-taking abilities early in development; and the unique demands of language development in multi-party conversations that happen in settings like classrooms for older children versus language development at home in dyadic interactions.