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
Review
. 2016 Apr;21(2):107-21.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/env060. Epub 2015 Dec 27.

Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants: A Meta-Analysis

Emily Lund  1
Affiliations
Review

Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants: A Meta-Analysis

Emily Lund. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

This article employs meta-analysis procedures to evaluate whether children with cochlear implants demonstrate lower spoken-language vocabulary knowledge than peers with normal hearing. Of the 754 articles screened and 52 articles coded, 12 articles met predetermined inclusion criteria (with an additional 5 included for one analysis). Effect sizes were calculated for relevant studies and forest plots were used to compare differences between groups of children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. Weighted effect size averages for expressive vocabulary measures (g = -11.99; p < .001) and for receptive vocabulary measures (g = -20.33; p < .001) indicated that children with cochlear implants demonstrate lower vocabulary knowledge than children with normal hearing. Additional analyses confirmed the value of comparing vocabulary knowledge of children with hearing loss to a tightly matched (e.g., socioeconomic status-matched) sample. Age of implantation, duration of implantation, and chronological age at testing were not significantly related to magnitude of weighted effect size. Findings from this analysis represent a first step toward resolving discrepancies in the vocabulary knowledge literature.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Forest plot of mean difference in scores on expressive vocabulary tasks for children with cochlear implants versus children with normal hearing.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plot of mean difference in scores on receptive vocabulary tasks for children with cochlear implants versus children with normal hearing.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Forest plot of mean difference in scores on expressive vocabulary tasks for children with cochlear implants versus test-specific normative data for children with normal hearing.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Forest plot of mean difference in scores on receptive vocabulary tasks for children with cochlear implants versus test-specific normative data for children with normal hearing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ambrose S. E. Fey M. E., & Eisenberg L. S (2012). Phonological awareness and print knowledge of preschool children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 811–823. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0086) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bedore L. M. Pena E. D. Garcia M., & Cortez C (2005). Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: When does it make a difference? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 188–200. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/020) - PubMed
    1. Bergeson T. R. Houston D. M., & Miyamoto R. T (2010). Effects of congenital hearing loss and cochlear implantation on audiovisual speech perception in infants and children. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 28, 157–165. doi:10.3233/RNN-2010-0522 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bloom L. (2002). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    1. Boons T. De Raeve L. Langereis M. Peeraer L. Wouters J., & van Wieringen A (2013). Expressive vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and narrative skills in profoundly deaf children after early cochlear implantation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2008–2022. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.003 - PubMed