These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of expressive vocabulary outcomes in hearing-impaired children with hearing aids: do bilaterally hearing-impaired children catch up?
    Author: Kiese-Himmel C, Reeh M.
    Journal: J Laryngol Otol; 2006 Aug; 120(8):619-26. PubMed ID: 16672086.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate expressive vocabulary growth in hearing-impaired preschool children wearing hearing aids. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of the outcomes of children included in the 1994 German 'Goettinger Hoer-Sprachregister' (GHR) series, using a repeated-measures paradigm in six- to nine-month intervals (t1-t3). SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven children (aged 2.0-4.4 years) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (with averages at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz of > 20 to > 90 dB in the better ear) from the 1994 GHR series. The children were diagnosed at a mean age of 31.4 months (standard deviation (SD) 10.6 months) and fitted with a binaural hearing aid at a mean age of 32.3 months (SD 10.5 months). Nonverbal intelligence was average (five missing data entries). Standardized, age-appropriate picture naming tests (the 'Sprachentwicklungstest für 2-jährige Kinder', the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children subtest vocabulary, and the 'Aktiver Wortschatztest für drei- bis sechsjährige Kinder') were carried out at three time points and results compared with data from children with normal hearing. The test raw scores were converted to T scores (mean = 50; SD = 10). RESULTS: On average, the children scored far below the normative population at t1 (mean = 28.9; SD = 11.3) and slowly improved as they got older (at t3, mean = 34.1; SD = 16.1; p = 0.010). Children with mild or moderate hearing loss improved most notably (mean difference t1-t3; p = 0.001), except for one child of deaf parents. Two of the five mildly hearing-impaired children and two of the eleven moderately hearing-impaired children caught up with their normal hearing peers with regards to expressive vocabulary. Such expressive vocabulary achievements were not seen in any children with > 70 dB hearing loss or in six of the eleven children (55 per cent) with a 40-70 dB hearing loss, despite receiving adequate personal amplification. CONCLUSION: Testing expressive vocabulary size is a useful clinical tool in assessing linguistic lexical outcome.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]