Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007;5(4):262-273.
doi: 10.1080/16513860701659404.

Estimating the Influence of Cochlear Implantation on Language Development in Children

Affiliations

Estimating the Influence of Cochlear Implantation on Language Development in Children

Ann E Geers et al. Audiol Med. 2007.

Abstract

Research studies reviewed here have identified a wide variety of factors that may influence a child's auditory, speech and language development following cochlear implantation. Intrinsic characteristics of the implanted child, including gender, family socio-economic status, age at onset of hearing loss and pre-implant residual hearing may predispose a child to greater or lesser post-implant benefit. Intervention characteristics that may influence outcome include age of the child when deafness is identified and amplification and habilitation is initiated, the communication mode used with the child and the type of classroom/therapy employed. Characteristics of the implant itself include generation of technology used, the age of the child when implant stimulation is initiated, and the amount of time the child has used the implant. These factors interact in unpredictable ways, so that isolated correlations between predictor variables and outcome scores may be difficult to interpret. Results for two independent samples of orally-educated children tested by different laboratories were compared using multiple regression analysis to illustrate interactions among predictor variables. Four predictor variables accounted for a similar proportion of variance (23% and 24%) in receptive vocabulary (PPVT) outcome scores in each sample. A unique predictor was then added to each analysis. The addition of pre-implant aided threshold not only increased the total variance accounted for to almost 40%, but also increased the effect of implant age as a predictor variable. A different result was observed in the other sample, were the added predictor variable was nonverbal IQ, where the estimated contribution of implant age was reduced. The current analysis suggests that future analyses minimally control for independent contributions of implant age, nonverbal IQ, and pre-implant aided thresholds when examining expected outcomes. Children in both samples who received a cochlear implant sometime between their first and second birthday achieved age-appropriate oral receptive vocabulary levels during preschool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Boothroyd A, Geers A, Moog J. Practical implications of cochlear implants in children. Ear and Hearing. 1991;12(Suppl):81–9. - PubMed
    1. Dawson PW, Blamey PJ, Dettman SJ, Barker EJ, Clark GM. A clinical report on receptive vocabulary skills in cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing. 1995 Jun;16(3):287–94. - PubMed
    1. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey A, Coulter D, Mehl A. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1161–71. - PubMed
    1. Geers A, Moog JS. Factors predictive of the development of literacy in hearing-impaired adolescents. Volta Review. 1989;91(2):69–86.
    1. Moog J, Geers A. EPIC: A program to accelerate academic progress in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Volta Review. 1985;87:259–77.

LinkOut - more resources