Age at implantation ...........

From here.....

Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children

M.E. Taita, T.P. Nikolopoulosb, , and M.E. Lutmanc
a The Ear Foundation, Nottingham, United Kingdom
b Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Athens University, Greece
c Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Received 13 September 2006; revised 16 December 2006; accepted 18 December 2006. Available online 18 January 2007.





Summary

Background

Preverbal vocal and auditory skills are essential precursors of spoken language development and they have been shown previously to predict later speech perception and production outcomes in young implanted deaf children.

Objectives

To assess the effect of age at implantation on the development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted children.

Methods

The study assessed 99 children, 33 in each of three groups (those implanted between 1 and 2 years; 2 and 3 years; and 3 and 4 years). Preverbal skills were measured in three areas: turn taking, autonomy and auditory awareness of spoken language, using the Tait video analysis method.

Results

The youngest implanted group made an exceptional progress outperforming in all measures the two other groups (p < 0.01), 6 and 12 months post-implantation, whereas there was no such difference before implantation. In the youngest group there was also significantly greater use of an auditory/oral style of communication: 85% of the group by 12 months post-implantation compared with 30% and 18% of the two older groups.

Conclusions

Vocal and auditory preverbal skills develop much more rapidly in children implanted between 1 and 2 years in comparison with older implanted children and reach a significantly higher level by 6 and 12 months post-implantation. In addition, younger implanted children are significantly more likely by 12 months post-implantation to adopt an auditory/oral mode of communication. These findings favour cochlear implantation as early as between 1 and 2 years, provided that correct diagnosis and adequate hearing-aid trial have been achieved

Keywords: Language development; Speech perception; Cochlear implant; Prediction; Vocal; auditory; Communication; Preverbal; Observation; Interaction; Deaf; Children; Outcome

Overview of studies regarding bi-lateral CI

The Validity of Probability Samples in Research on Deafness

The Validity of Probability Samples in Research on Deafness
by Crain, Kelly Lamar

American Annals of the Deaf - Volume 151, Number 2,

Reference Issue 2006, pp. 114-120

Gallaudet University Press
American Annals of the Deaf 151.2 (2006) 114-120 _________________________________________________________________ [Access article in PDF]

The Validity of Probability Samples in Research on Deafness

Kelly Lamar Crain Thomas N. Kluwin

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of small nonprobability samples in research in the education of the deaf and hard of hearing in the face of a current and increasing emphasis on "scientifically based research" as required by recent No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal legislation.

The authors examine the gains and losses in information generated using non-probability samples in our field, describe the conditions required for generalizable research results, and identify several factors in the field of research in the education of the deaf that limit the ability to generate probability samples.

Finally, the authors consider possible solutions to the problem, including more creative recruitment strategies, alternate research designs, and alternate reviewing strategies. While the recent focus on "scientific" approaches to educational research has not met with universal acceptance, some general requirements do appear with emphasis on randomized trials, more controlled interventions, and more careful sampling procedures (Feuer & Towne, 2002; Reyna, 2002).

Nonetheless, there is currently a continuing debate on what constitutes adequate evidence in educational research and how it should be interpreted (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Feuer & Towne, 2002). While there is no single test for evaluating the quality of evidence in educational research, there is a strong push for experimental research as the gold standard. In special education, the debate has come down to a "generalist" approach, which tries to define the quality of research in terms of the research questions being asked (Odom, Brantlinger, Gersten, Horner, Thompson, & Harris,...