children with mild and unilateral hearing impairment
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Impairment

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Impairment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

EDHI Feb 2004. Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Impairment. Current management and outcome measures. Kirsti Reeve Ph.D. Developmental Disabilities Institute Wayne State University, Detroit MI. Overview.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Impairment' - bethany


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
children with mild and unilateral hearing impairment

EDHI Feb 2004

Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Impairment

Current management and outcome measures

Kirsti Reeve Ph.D.

Developmental Disabilities Institute

Wayne State University, Detroit MI

overview
Overview
  • Current management for children with mild and unilateral hearing impairment (HI)
  • Outcome measures:
    • Speech and language
    • Cognition
why these populations
Why these populations?
  • Very little known about management or outcomes for mild or unilateral HI
  • NHSP offers the potential for early identification
  • There is strong evidence that early identification gives improved outcomes in moderate and greater HI populations
  • Need to ascertain whether it would be appropriate for these groups
study overview
Study overview
  • Two separate studies
    • Questionnaire survey to audiologists investigating management options
    • Outcomes study
      • Obtained epidemiological data
      • Assessed impact of HI quality of life
      • Assessed impact of HI on speech, language & cognition
why assess service provision
Why assess service provision?
  • Areas of uncertainty
    • Numbers of children being identified
    • Age of identification
    • Management options for these groups
    • Level at which to provide hearing aids
how was it done
How was it done?
  • Single page questionnaire survey
  • Sent out to 131 professionals throughout the UK
  • 1 reminder
  • 56 responses (43%)
results
Results
  • Information on the mild and unilateral cases seen
  • Management offered to those cases
results9
Results
  • Information on the mild and unilateral cases seen
  • Management offered to those cases
numbers of children with bilateral mild impairment
Numbers of children with bilateral mild impairment
  • Defined as 20-40dBHL permanent sensorineural loss
  • Comprise 8% of total caseload
  • Range seen from 0 to 300 (mean of 25)
  • Estimated total number seen by 56 clinicians: 1220
numbers of children with unilateral hearing impairment
Numbers of children with unilateral hearing impairment
  • Defined as permanent sensorineural loss in one ear only.
  • Comprise 4% of total caseload
  • Range seen from 0 to 40 (mean of 9)
  • Estimated total number seen by 56 clinicians: 443
numbers found
Numbers found
  • Literature estimates prevalence figures at:
    • between 0.5-5.2% for unilateral impairment
    • Between 1 and 5.4% for mild impairment
  • “It is well recognized that an inverse relationship exists between the prevalence and degree of hearing loss” – Bess 1984
  • The low percentage as ascertained by this questionnaire would imply that large numbers of these populations are not receiving audiological management
age of referral data from trent region mild n 50 unilateral 30

100

90

X

80

X

70

X

60

X

50

X

Moderate

40

X

All Trent

30

,

Mild

Unilateral

20

X

,

10

,

0

,

)

\'

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Age of referral, data from Trent Region(Mild n=50, Unilateral = 30)

percentiles

Age in months

age of referral16
Age of referral
  • Age of referral is late for both groups of children when compared with Trent data
  • Children with unilateral impairment identified significantly later than children with mild impairment
  • Modal age of between 4 and 6 years suggests that the school entry is a factor leading to identification
results17
Results
  • Information on the mild and unilateral cases seen
  • Management offered to those cases
management19
Management
  • Most frequent options are review and advice
  • Children with mild HI are significantly more likely to be offered:
    • Hearing Aids (p=0.0005)
    • Speech Therapy (p=0.003)
    • Referral to other professional (p=0.022)
provision of aids
Provision of aids
  • Uncertainty among professionals on whether to aid mild HI
  • Level below which you would not consider providing aids:
    • 25dBHL (range from 15 - 35dBHL)
  • Level above which you would definitely provide aids:
    • 40dBHL (range from 25 to 50dbHL)
management conclusions
Management conclusions
  • Mild and unilateral HI are under-represented in the caseload of this sample
  • These groups of children are identified later than children with more severe impairments
  • Management is still uncertain whetherto provide aids and at what level for children with a bilateral mild impairment
hypotheses
Hypotheses
  • Language is likely to be affected to some degree by a mild or unilateral hearing impairment
  • There will be a positive relationship between language scores, non-word repetition and verbal reasoning
subjects
Subjects
  • 41 children from CHAC met study criteria:
    • Aged 6-11
    • Bilateral mild, or unilateral hearing impairment
    • HI is sensorineural
    • No associated syndromes, or other problems.
    • No known learning or cognitive disabilities.
    • English as first language
  • 20 children agreed to participate though one child DNA’d twice, and was not followed up a third time.
participants
Participants
  • 8 mild
  • 11 unilateral
    • 6 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe, 1 profound
    • 5 left ear impaired, 6 right ear
  • 5 girls, 14 boys
  • Aged 6-11, average age 8yrs 3 months
  • Age of identification ranged from 9 months to 6 years 7 months (mean of 2 years 4 months)
assessments
Assessments
  • The session consisted of:
    • Computer based test of sound lateralization
    • Standardised language assessment (CELF-3 UK)
    • Children’s test of Non word Repetition
    • BAS verbal & non-verbal reasoning (IQ)
  • Most sessions lasted 90-120 mins including breaks.
results27
Results
  • Language
  • Non-word repetition
  • Cognition
results28
Results
  • Language
  • Non-word repetition
  • Cognition
language testing celf 3 uk
Language testing - CELF 3 UK
  • Standardised on UK population
    • Six subtests:
      • 3 for receptive language (understanding)
        • Sentence Structure (aged 6-8) / Semantic Relationships (aged 9+)
        • Concepts and Directions
        • Word Classes
      • 3 for expressive language (speaking)
        • Word Structure (6-8) / Sentence Assembly (9+)
        • Formulated Sentences
        • Recalling Sentences
means of all language scores
Means of all language scores

Standardised Test: mean:100, sd:15

Receptive Language

Mean: 89.65,

sd 13.18

Expressive Language

Mean: 85.76,

sd 13.51

Total Language

Mean: 86.29,

sd 14.01

speech language results 1
Speech & language results 1
  • Unilateral group - total language score mean of 91.78
  • Mild group - total language score mean of 80.12
  • With a linear regression, the difference in scores just misses significance (.089) - this could be due to the small sample size.
speech language results 2
Speech & language results 2
  • Converting scores to age equivalent gives an average language delays of:
    • 6 months for children with a unilateral impairment
    • 24 months for children with a mild impairment
results34
Results
  • Language
  • Non-word repetition
  • Cognition
children s test of non word repetition
Children’s Test of Non-word Repetition
  • Assesses phonological memory, and is predicative of literacy development
  • Administered via computer
  • Scores converted to standard scores, with a mean of 100, sd of 10
cn rep results 1
CN-Rep Results 1
  • Both groups of children scored below 100 on this task
    • Children with mild HI: mean= 87.75
    • Children with unilateral HI: mean=95.55
cn rep results 2
CN-Rep results 2
  • Significant correlation of .953 with the recalling sentence CELF subtest (p=0.005) controlling for age
  • Scores can be compared with those from an OME group and hearing controls from BOS study
results40
Results
  • Language
  • Non-word repetition
  • Cognition
cognition
Cognition
  • Two tests from the British Abilities Scale (BAS)
  • Similarities (verbal reasoning)
    • Why do these things go together:
      • “milk, lemonade, coffee” , “cod, shark, pilchard”
    • Need to produce the superordinate
  • Matrices (non verbal reasoning)
    • Finish the pattern
cognition results 1
Cognition results 1
  • Similarities (verbal reasoning)
    • centile scores ranged from 17-84
    • mean of 45.71, sd 20
  • Matrices (non verbal reasoning)
    • centile scores ranged from 29-99
    • mean of 77.82, sd of 23.55
  • So - significantly impaired scores on verbal reasoning (p<.001 on independent samples t-test)
cognition results 2
Cognition results 2
  • Only 3 children, all with mild HI, had higher verbal than non-verbal reasoning
  • Mean difference of 32 centiles between verbal and non-verbal scores
  • Significant difference in non-verbal score depending on type of HI
    • Independent samples t test gives p=0.027
cognition results 4
Cognition results 4
  • Correlation of .625 between verbal reasoning and CELF language scores (p=0.003)
  • Results can be compared across severity range with outcomes data from larger studies
outcome measures conclusions
Outcome measures conclusions

The caveat -

  • These children were all identified through CHAC. Therefore they have made it to the attention of the audiology services
  • There may be ascertainment bias which could effect the results and make generalisation more difficult
outcome measures conclusions49
Outcome measures conclusions
  • Laterality of impairment for the unilateral group was not predictive of performance
  • Greater severity of impairment was correlated with better performance on language outcomes ...
  • … although numbers are very small
outcome measures conclusions50
Outcome measures conclusions
  • Children with mild or unilateral hearing HI who are known to audiology services could be at risk for developing language problems
  • Children with a bilateral mild impairment are perhaps at greater risk than those with a unilateral impairment, regardless of severity
overall conclusions
Overall conclusions
  • Children with mild impairments are showing language deficits that may possibly be ameliorated through earlier identification
  • There is a need for further research in the area of amplification provision for mild impairments
overall conclusions52
Overall conclusions
  • Children with unilateral impairments showed a variable performance which was not correlated with severity of impairment or side of impairment
  • There is the need for a larger study to investigate these findings further
  • Early identification through NHSP is still recommended
thanks to
Thanks to
  • Adrian Davis and Sally Hind at MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham
  • Paul Shaw and the staff at CHAC, Nottingham
  • Helen Spencer & Jabulani Sithole for statistical assistance
  • Medical Research Council for PhD funding
why does the prevalence increase with age
Why does the prevalence increase with age?
  • Is it…
    • new cases (i.e. acquired losses)?
    • progressive nature of mild cases?
    • late onset?
    • persistent OME?
ad