A Technology-Assisted Language Intervention for Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Consideration of Demographic Variables in Behavioral Interventions Pertaining to Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Equitable representation of children with hearing loss who are members of marginalized or minority groups in behavioral intervention studies enhances inclusivity in the scientific process and generalizability of results. The goal of this systematic review was to ascertain the percentage of studies conducted in the United States in the past 2 decades that reported relevant demographic variables.

METHOD

Studies were searched across eight databases and clinical trial registries in October 2022. Variations of the following search strings were used to retrieve peer-reviewed published studies and unpublished clinical trials: children, hearing loss, and intervention.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. The selected studies were reviewed and coded for the following demographic variables: area and type of intervention, participant age, hearing technology data, sample size, gender, race/skin color and ethnicity, primary/home language(s), additional disabilities, parental education, family income, and parental occupation. Results revealed that many demographic variables were remarkably underreported, with parental education, family income, and parental occupation variables being the least reported data.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic data can be an important tool for changing disparities related to intervention outcomes. This systematic review suggests that inclusive research practices should be extended to low-literacy or low-economic resources, non-White, and non-English-speaking groups. Inclusion practices coupled with sufficient sample sizes will ultimately aid in identifying hearing health disparities.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with complex needs: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) encompasses all forms of unaided and aided modes of communication, but typically excludes codified language such as spoken words or American Sign Language (ASL). In pediatric patients with a documented additional disability (population of interest), deficits in communication may pose a barrier to language development. While forms of AAC are frequently mentioned in the literature, recent innovations have permitted the use of high-tech AAC in the rehabilitation process. Our objective was to review the implementation of AAC in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with a documented additional disability.

METHODS

A scoping review of existing literature examining the use of AAC in pediatric CI recipients was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies with pediatric cochlear implant recipients with a concomitant diagnosis requiring additional therapeutic intervention outside the scope of standard post-CI follow-up care and rehabilitation from 1985 to 2021 met inclusion criteria (population of interest). Studies limited to spoken or formal sign language (e.g., American Sign Language, ASL) as communication modalities were excluded.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty studies were screened of which 29 were included. 13 were prospective, 10 were retrospective, 1 was cross-sectional, and 5 were case reports. Of these 29 studies, 378 patients met the inclusion criteria (age <18, CI user, additional disability, utilized AAC). Fewer studies (n = 7) utilized AAC as the primary intervention for investigation. Autism spectrum disorder, learning disorder, and cognitive delay were frequently mentioned as additional disabilities in conjunction with AAC. Unaided forms of AAC included gesture/behavior, informal sign, and signed exact English, while aided AAC included a Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), Voice Output Communication Aids (VOCA), and touchscreen programs such as TouchChat® HD. Various audiometric and language development outcome measures were mentioned, most commonly the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (n = 4) and the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

There is a gap in the literature regarding the use of aided and high-tech AAC in pediatric CI users with a documented additional disability. Given the use of multiple different outcome measures, additional exploration of the intervention of AAC is warranted.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Vocabulary Interventions for Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE

The development of vocabulary size in deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) children and adolescents can be delayed compared to their peers due to lack of access to early language input. Complementary vocabulary interventions are reported in the literature. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention methods for their vocabulary improvement.

METHOD

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched five databases for peer-reviewed journal articles in English, published between 2000 and 2022 (inclusive), reporting vocabulary interventions for 2- to 18-year-old DHH children and adolescents without comorbidities. We conducted separate meta-analyses using a random-effects model on receptive oral vocabulary, expressive oral vocabulary, and signed vocabulary. We assessed the methodological quality of each paper. This review is preregistered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with ID CRD42021243479.

RESULTS

We included 25 group studies in this review out of 1,724 identified records. The quality assessment of the studies revealed risk of bias ranging from some concerns to high risk. Experimental vocabulary instruction produced improvement in receptive oral vocabulary (Hedges's g = 1.08, 95% CI [0.25, 1.90], I² = 93.46, p = .01), expressive oral vocabulary (Hedges's g = 1.00, 95% CI [0.18, 1.83], I² = 96.37, p = .02), and signed vocabulary (Hedges's g = 1.88, 95% CI [1.09, 2.66], I² = 96.01, p < .001) in the experimental groups. Written vocabulary and general vocabulary skills are also reported as a synthesis of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Multisensory and multimodal explicit vocabulary instruction for DHH children and adolescents is helpful in improving vocabulary acquisition with respect to baseline levels. However, its effectiveness must be carefully interpreted due to the lack of proper control groups and details on treatment as usual reported in the studies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23646357.

Technology assisted language intervention (TALI) for children who are deaf/hard of hearing: promising impact on pragmatic skills

Children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) often demonstrate pragmatic language difficulties which can impact academic and social outcomes. This randomized control trial for DHH children, ages 3-12 years, explored the Technology-Assisted Language Intervention (TALI), incorporating augmentative and alternative communication technology (AAC) into traditional speech/language therapy, compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) to determine impact on pragmatics. Pragmatic outcome measures included parent reported Pragmatics Profile of the CELF-5 (for children age ≥5 years) and CELF-P Descriptive Pragmatics Profile (for children <5 years) in addition to parent reported Social and Communication domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales,Third Edition (VABS). Over 24 weeks, children ≥5 years in the TALI made significantly more progress (increase in raw scores) on the Pragmatics Profile compared to children in TAU (12.7 points vs. -6.0 points; p = 0.04) and also showed significant gains on two of the three subscales. For children ≥5 years, no significant VABS changes were seen in either intervention group. For children <5 years, there were no statistically significant differences in growth on the CELF-P total pragmatics raw score or on any subdomain. However, children in TALI had significant increases in the mean VABS Communication (86.7-99.1) and Social domain standard scores (91.8-97.4;p = 0.01), while gains for children in TAU on the Communication and Social domain standard scores were not statistically significant. These promising results support the need for additional research exploring the effectiveness of AAC supported speech/language therapy to enhance DHH children's pragmatic language skills.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02998164.

The Importance of Accessible Language for Development in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

CASE

Brady is a 5-year-old boy who was seen in a multidisciplinary clinic for evaluation of deaf and hard of hearing children. Brady was born full-term after an uncomplicated pregnancy. He was referred for audiological evaluation after his newborn hearing screen and was diagnosed with a severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing difference at age 6 months. He has no other medical history.Brady was referred for developmental evaluation after completing his medical workup and cochlear implantation at an outside institution. No etiologic cause of his hearing difference was identified, and his diagnosis was presumed to be genetic and nonsyndromic. He had previously undergone right cochlear implantation at age 14 months and left cochlear implantation at age 23 months. Brady received speech and language therapy, with an emphasis on spoken language through early intervention, and met all motor and social milestones at appropriate times. Despite therapy, he continued to show delays in meeting language and communication milestones. Given concerns over persistent language delays after cochlear implantation, he underwent an interdisciplinary speech, language, and psychological evaluation at 3 years 4 months old. At the time of his evaluation, he was noted to have robust social skills but significantly delayed expressive and receptive language skills with language use limited to single words.After the initial evaluation, he was enrolled at a school for the deaf with instruction provided in both spoken English and American Sign Language. In follow-up evaluation at age 4 years 8 months, Brady was described as happy, cooperative, and eager to connect socially. It was noted that he had age-appropriate visual spatial cognitive and motor skills and had made some gains compared with prior assessments in both spoken and sign language. Notably, however, his language abilities and most areas of adaptive living skills remained below what would be expected by his developmental age and in some domains plateaued compared with prior assessments. He was able to produce some words and signs and responded to all prompts using only single words or signs and gestures. Brady's parents present today to your multidisciplinary clinic asking to understand why his language has not progressed further and to learn how they can help him reach his full potential.