Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss

Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss
复制标题

DOI:
10.1542/peds.102.5.1161
复制
发表时间:
1998-11-01
期刊:
影响因子:
8
通讯作者:
Mehl, AL
Mehl, AL
中科院分区:
医学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Yoshinaga-Itano, C;Sedey, AL;Mehl, AL

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目标。比较早期和晚期确诊的失聪和听力障碍儿童的语言能力。我们比较了72名6月龄前确诊为听力损失的失聪或听力障碍儿童与78名6月龄后确诊为听力损失的儿童的接受和表达语言能力。所有儿童均在确诊后平均2个月内接受早期干预服务。参与者的接受和表达语言能力是用明尼苏达儿童发展量表来测量的。6个月大时发现听力损失的儿童比6个月大后发现的儿童表现出明显更好的语言成绩。对于认知能力正常的儿童,这种语言优势在所有测试年龄、交流模式、听力损失程度和社会经济阶层中都有发现。它也独立于性别、少数民族地位和是否存在其他残疾。更好的语言发展与早期识别听力损失和早期干预有关。在与失聪和听力障碍儿童的语言能力相关的几个变量上,早识别组和晚识别组之间没有显著差异。因此,两组不同的变量(识别年龄和干预年龄)必须被认为是早期识别组记录的语言优势的潜在解释。
Objective. To compare the language abilities of earlier- and later-identified deaf and hard-of-hearing children.Method. We compared the receptive and expressive language abilities of 72 deaf or hard-of-hearing children whose hearing losses were identified by 6 months of age with 78 children whose hearing losses were identified after the age of 6 months. All of the children received early intervention services within an average of 2 months after identification. The participants' receptive and expressive language abilities were measured using the Minnesota Child Development Inventory.Results. Children whose hearing losses were identified by 6 months of age demonstrated significantly better language scores than children identified after 6 months of age. For children with normal cognitive abilities, this language advantage was found across all test ages, communication modes, degrees of hearing loss, and socioeconomic strata. It also was independent of gender, minority status, and the presence or absence of additional disabilities.Conclusions. Significantly better language development was associated with early identification of hearing loss and early intervention. There was no significant difference between the earlier- and later-identified groups on several variables frequently associated with language ability in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Thus, the variable on which the two groups differed (age of identification and intervention) must be considered a potential explanation for the language advantage documented in the earlier-identified group.