Review Article
Finding Aspects of Effective Spoken Language Interventions for Children with Cochlear Implants and/or Hearing Aids: An Editorial of Emerging Works
Douglas M*
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, USA
*Corresponding author: Michael Douglas, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert AVT, Medical Center East, South Tower, 1215 21st Ave South Suite 6422, Nashville, TN, USA
Published: 05 Sep, 2016
Cite this article as: Douglas M. Finding Aspects of Effective Spoken Language Interventions for Children with Cochlear Implants and/or Hearing Aids: An Editorial of Emerging Works. Clin Surg. 2016; 1: 1099.
Abstract
While there is a strong evidence base in the extant literature showing children with hearing loss
need intervention in certain linguistic areas, there is limited empirical evidence exposing the actual
teaching practices that facilitate efficient learning. As a result, children may not be reaching optimal
spoken language outcomes. The principal purpose of this editorial is to present some recent and
emerging features of intervention that may improve the spoken language performance of children
with cochlear implants and/or hearing aids. In particular, the preliminary effects of using childperformance
data to manage outcomes, dual language learning intervention, various components of
vocabulary instruction and certain aspects of phonological awareness training are reviewed.
Keywords: Cochlear implants; Hearing aids; Interventions
Introduction
Listening and spoken language programs for children with hearing loss emphasize the development of spoken language by assuring maximum access to sound through hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs), regular exposure to a rich, linguistic environment and encouraging parents to be partners in their child’s learning [1]. While many children with significant hearing loss who receive cochlear implants and hearing aids have demonstrated the ability to acquire ageappropriate spoken language skills, the majority of these children also require specialized and individualized teaching by qualified professionals [2-4]. Even with such efforts, there continues to be a language gap at the group level between children with hearing loss and their normal-hearing peers [5-7]. If the goal for children with hearing loss, particularly those developing spoken language, is to develop proficiency that is equivalent to peers with normal hearing, then these children must learn at a rate that is faster than would be expected of children with normal hearing. It is imperative; therefore, that research defines which instructional practices lead to the fastest rates of learning in children with hearing loss. While there is existing evidence in the literature for certain variables of intervention (i.e. early identification, early amplification) and positive prognostic factors (i.e., no other medical issues, educated parents, etc.) that predict future success with hearing technology, many instructional practices are guided by a set of principles established by the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and informed by typical development [8]. There is also a strong evidence base showing children with hearing loss need intervention in certain linguistic areas, however; there is limited empirical evidence exposing the teaching practices that are actual active ingredients for efficient learning to occur (E.g. vocabulary, syntax, phonological awareness, dual language, etc). As a result, children may not be reaching optimal spoken language outcomes. While such intervention studies are sparse, there has been a recent emergence in the number of examinations evaluating the effectiveness of intervention strategies and instructional practices which lead to improved outcomes for children with hearing loss. Exploring processes that maximize individualized instruction is important because of the variability in outcomes that can occur in this population. Deaf educators and listening and spoken language specialists need effective and efficient methods that allow them to scaffold and differentiate instruction for this dynamic group of children. The purpose of this article is to bring attention some recent literature, completed by the current author and his colleagues, that exposes some suspected features of intervention that may have the potential to improve the spoken language success of children with cochlear implants and/or hearing aids. In particular, the preliminary effects of using child-performance data to manage outcomes, dual language learning intervention, various components of vocabulary instruction and certain aspects of phonological awareness training will be reviewed.
Using Child-Performance Data (Data-Driven Instruction)
In general, it has been the consensus for decades that the most
effective interventions for students with disabilities-whether in special
education or general education settings-have employed intensive
and reasonably individualized instruction, combined with careful,
frequent monitoring of student progress [9]. Until recently, there has
been no mention in the literature on the effects of such Data-Driven
Instruction (DDI) for children with hearing loss compared to those
who do not receive DDI in spoken language programs [9]. To study
this, in a two year retrospective study, compared 11 matched pairs
of children with cochlear implants who attended the same spoken
language preschool. One group received DDI and the other did not.
Groups were matched with no statistically significant differences
for age of hearing device fitting, time in the program, degree of predevice
fitting hearing loss, gender and age at testing.
For the DDI group, daily informal language samples were collected
and analyzed over a two-year period, per preschool protocol. Annual
informal and formal spoken language assessments in articulation,
vocabulary and omnibus language were administered at the end
of 3 time intervals: baseline, end of year one, and end of year two.
Utilizing a partnership approach, classroom coaches worked with the
deaf education teachers who participated in the study for two years
to analyze data, develop activities, and implement lesson plans that
would help the child meet the selected spoken language objective(s).
Teachers also had the opportunity to discuss student learning and
design intervention on a regular basis in their shared office spaces and
during bi-monthly staff meetings scheduled throughout each school
year.
The primary outcome measures of the DDI group were total
raw score performance of spontaneous utterance sentence types and
syntax element use as measured by the Teacher Assessment of Spoken
Language (TASL) [10]. In addition, standardized assessments (the
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool Version
2 (CELF-P2) [11], the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
(EOWPVT) [12], the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
(ROWPVT) and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2 [13]
were also administered and compared with the control group.
Results indicated that the data-driven instruction group
demonstrated significantly higher raw scores on the TASL each year
of the study and significantly higher scores for total language on the
CELF-P and expressive vocabulary on the EOWPVT compared to the
control group, but not for articulation or receptive vocabulary. Posthoc
assessment revealed that 78% of the students in the DDI group
achieved scores in the average range compared to 59% in the control
group.
Overall, data-driven instruction is a system of teaching and
outcomes management that strives to provide more detailed
information about students into the hands of LSL professionals.
This type of instruction may not only be effective, but an important
“ingredient” to the improved spoken language success of children
with cochlear implants and/or hearing aids [9].
Developing Dual Language Capabilities
There are an increasing number of individuals with HL who
use CIs and HAs who speak two languages with considerable
differences in agreement in both the research literature and clinical
practice regarding recommendations on which spoken language to
support in bilingual children with HL who use CIs and HAs [14-19].
Some researchers have found evidence for supporting both spoken
languages in bilingual children who have HL and use CIs and HAs
[14,16], while other sources are more cautious or even refrain from
recommending support of the home language for this population
[15,18]. The lack of agreement regarding best practices coupled
with the limited amount of research on speech and language skills
of bilingual children with HL who use CIs and HAs have prompted
studies addressing the issue of whether or not supporting the home
language can have beneficial results not only for the language spoken
at home but also for the language of the majority culture [14,16].
In particular, [14] conducted a study comparing the language
skills of bilingual Spanish- and English-speaking children (from
non-English speaking homes) to those of their monolingual Englishspeaking
peers, all of whom had hearing loss and used CIs and/
or HAs. The bilingual children in the [14] study all received dual
language support, and the authors found that the language skills of
the bilingual and the monolingual participants were commensurate.
Furthermore, when comparing the Spanish and English language
skills of the bilingual participants, the skills were found to be not
only comparable, but also highly correlated. The authors concluded
that supporting the language spoken at home (in this case, Spanish)
for bilingual children who used CIs and/or HAs did not hinder the
children’s ability to acquire English.
More recently, in a retrospective study [20], compared the
language skills of two groups of bilingual children who used CIs and
HAs and received different types of support. One group received
support in both of their languages (Spanish and English) while the
other group received support in English only. Both groups were from
non-English-speaking homes (the home language was Spanish in
both groups). The English scores of the children in the dual language
support group, as measured by the PLS-5, exceeded those of their
peers who received English only support [20]. Concluded that, quality
dual language support by qualified and trained professionals has the
potential to accelerate majority language learning for children from
non-English speaking homes.
Overall, research findings in support of dual language learning
suggest that quality language support in both languages early in life
is not detrimental to language development in bilingual children
with HL who use CIs and HAs. On the contrary, early dual language
support for bilingual children may accelerate expressive and total
language skills because children with HL learning spoken languages
need more rather than less, language input.
In both research studies the bilingual participants with dual
language support experienced intervention that was designed to
make improvements in both languages. Effective components of this
instruction have been described as a coordination of services where
bilingual SLPs work with the child and family on their home language
on a weekly basis, while deaf educators work with these children on a
daily basis in English on parallel lesson plans [21].
Components of Effective Vocabulary Instruction
Despite poor vocabulary outcomes for children with hearing loss,
few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of specific vocabularyteaching
methodologies on vocabulary learning for this group. In an
effort to address this paucity in the research [22], investigated how
semantic richness of instruction interacts with individual child profiles
to influence word learning. A single subject adapted alternating
treatments design measured the effects of three semantic richness
conditions–Semantically Sparse, Semantically Rich, and Semantically
Super Rich- on expressive vocabulary learning at the end of the school
week. Across participants, the two most semantically rich conditions
(the Semantically Rich and Semantically Super-Rich conditions)
related to superior expressive labeling outcomes as compared to the
Semantically Sparse condition. This study indicated that inclusion of
semantically rich information during instruction, such as linking the
new word to other words a child might know, may improve wordlearning
outcomes. The participating children seemed to learn words
more easily if they had additional information that allowed them to
evoke imagery, semantic features, or a memory of bodily experience
with the new word. Analysis of overall performance, demonstrated
that expressive labeling performance was lowest for those children
with delayed scores on norm-referenced articulation measures and
highest for those with low omnibus language in the super-semantically
rich condition. Overall, the authors concluded that the semantic
richness of instruction differentially affects the expressive vocabulary
learning of children with hearing loss depending on individual child
characteristics (e.g. low omnibus language, poor articulation).
Additionally, according to the authors, asking teachers to provide
varying levels of semantic information also altered the teachers’
word repetition. Post-hoc analysis of the intervention fidelity videos
revealed that the teachers produced new words an average of 6.3 times
in the Semantically Sparse condition, 9.7 times in the Semantically
Rich condition and 10.4 times in the Semantically Super-Rich
condition. It was concluded that providing more word repetitions for
these children was automatic for teachers when they were instructed
to elaborate on new words for children with hearing loss. Overall, the
provision of learning opportunities that include physical interactions
with a new word paired with increased opportunities for the children
to hear the word many times in meaningful contexts appeared to
be particularly important for the children in the study; especially
for those with low vocabulary knowledge and/or limited listening
experience.
Dovetailing on the above study, [22] evaluated a few of the
many intervention strategies (increased repetition, increased
environmental exposure) promoted to teach vocabulary to children
with hearing loss, particularly preschool-aged children [22-24], by
comparing three vocabulary instruction conditions: (a) explicit,
direct instruction, (b) follow-in labeling, and (c) incidental exposure
using an adapted alternating treatments single-subject experimental
design. Visual analysis of the results of the data indicated that all 9
participants learned the most words in the explicit, direct instruction
condition and the fewest words in the incidental exposure condition.
These results were not consistent with some recommendations
currently made to educators, however, the authors implications for
practice, including emphasis on direct instruction, were discussed
and for children with hearing loss, it was concluded that the way in
which words are taught matters [25]. The authors recommended that
the discouragement of explicit instruction using drill in favor of only
incidental teaching experiences may not be the most effective way to
rapidly increase the vocabulary knowledge of a child with hearing
loss. Instead, explicit instruction paired with opportunities for
incidental use of new words throughout the day may better facilitate
word learning for children with hearing loss than a one-time-only
incidental input. In this study, direct instruction was demonstrated
to be an appropriate way to supplement the learning opportunities of
children with hearing loss, particularly if those children are unlikely
to learn words through incidental exposure. Although this study
provided preliminary evidence that direct instruction is superior
to focused, follow-in or incidental input alone, visual analysis of all
three forms of input compared in this study indicated that each were
likely useful to varying degrees and perhaps necessary for learning
and generalizing vocabulary knowledge. The authors suggested
utilizing these different approaches of vocabulary intervention
when scaffolding instruction versus choosing one over the other;
starting with the most effective as demonstrated in this study and
moving to incidental approaches perhaps as a form of review and/
or reinforcement.
Overall, these two studies find the following aspects of intervention
to matter: semantic richness, explicit instruction and scaffolding that
allows for increasingly meaningful use of the target words throughout
the child’s day. Children with hearing loss may be able to learn words
more easily if they have additional information that allows a child to
evoke imagery, semantic features, or a memory of bodily experience
with the new word. Explicit instruction paired with opportunities for
naturalistic use of new words throughout the day may better facilitate
word learning for children with hearing loss than only naturalistic
input (Lund & Douglas, in press).
Phonological Awareness Training
Even though cochlear implants and digital hearing aids have
provided increased access to sound for children with hearing loss over
the past several decades, their median reading levels by 18-years of
age have not increased since the 1970s [26,27]. Literacy outcomes for
Children with Hearing Loss (CHL) have been reported to continue to
plateau at a median third- to fourth-grade reading level [27]. Clearly,
increased access to sound has not led to gains in literacy performance
on its own. There is a great need, therefore, to develop effective and
efficient literacy interventions for CHL.
In a case report of 9 preschool children, [28] aimed to find features
of phonological awareness intervention for preschoolers with hearing
loss that could facilitate mastery of PA skills comparable to children
without hearing loss. In particular, the authors highlighted issues
related to skills that are transferable to mainstream settings (i.e., typical
hierarchy of phonological awareness skills trained through spoken
language), intervention modifications suspected to be important for
CHL (i.e., contrasting continuants vs. stops in the initial position of
CV words) and treatment intensity (i.e. short 15 minute lessons vs. 20-
30 minute lessons). In this study, authors utilized an evidenced-based
intervention that was considered to be transferable to the mainstream
setting in that it utilized an existing method demonstrated to be
effective for school-aged children with reading delays, in general
education settings, who did not have hearing loss. This study also
provided additional evidence that modifying PA intervention in
a way that offers clarity through maximal contrasting stimuli (i.e.
discriminating between two initial sounds, voiceless bilabial stop
and voiceless alveolar continuant) can be effective in improving PA
outcomes for CHL as opposed to implementing a curriculum without
the use of modifications. Lastly, considering fatigue related to hearing
loss and a preschooler’s capacity for withstanding a lesson longer
than 15 minutes, the PA intervention was designed to include 2 fiveminute
PA activities preceded by a five-minute letter knowledge
activity. In just 15 minutes per day, 4 days per week, substantial
gains in PA skills were made across the prekindergarten school year
resulting in age-appropriate PA skills, as well as age-appropriate letter
and letter-sound knowledge for almost all of the participants across as
indicated by the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening– Pre K.
Overall, it appears, based on this preliminary research, that
when designing PA intervention, aspects of effective intervention
for preschool children may include the teaching of skills that are
relevant to a general education classroom, differentiated in a way that
is facilitative to the unique auditory abilities of children with hearing
loss and completed in short, 15 minute daily lessons.
Conclusion
Given the performance gap that continues to exist at the group
level between children with hearing loss and their normal-hearing
person language learning and later reading and writing development,
it is vital that effective early interventions be developed and utilized
[22]. While more evidence is mounting in the literature, this article
has presented a review of some emerging, preliminary evidence
aiming to expose the active “ingredients” of effective intervention.
Overall, preliminary results of the literature mentioned in
this article indicate possible aspects of effective spoken language
intervention to include instruction that is purposefully data-driven,
explicit and semantically rich [22,26]. When designing intervention
for the population of children with hearing loss who are dual language
learners, instruction must be in the languages the child needs to be
successful in his/her life. This can be done through a coordination
of services implemented by a team of professionals, including the
family, who take particular roles in developing each language [20].
Features of PA intervention for preschoolers with hearing loss
that could facilitate mastery of PA skills comparable to children
without hearing loss appear to include skills that are transferable to
mainstream settings, use of modifications suspected to be important
for CHL and daily treatment that is short (15 minutes) and spread out
throughout the school year [28].
With the goal of developing spoken language proficiency that
is equivalent to peers with normal hearing, future directions in
research should be aimed at developing recommendations consistent
with practices that accelerate learning. A next step in this line
of research is to generalize these findings prospectively to larger
groups of children with hearing loss using more group-design and
possibly multi-center studies. Concerning vocabulary instruction, the
finding that articulation related to word-learning outcomes should
be further explored [22]. If children with many articulation errors
tend to be poorer word learners than other children with hearing
loss, individualized instruction may need to reflect that difference.
For phonological awareness training, studies are needed that include
CHL who are delayed, late-identified and whose PA delays persist,
despite evidence-based intervention [28]. Other possible aspects of
effective intervention to explore could be the effects of group size and
impact of instructional coaches on student learning [25].
Otolaryngologists who consider the information in this paper may
be able to enrich their meaningful discussions with interventionists
and with families who are in the process of choosing therapeutic
and/or educational environments for their children with cochlear
implants and/or hearing aids. It is the hope of the author that the
certain intervention “ingredients” documented in these studies will,
at a minimum, serve as a set of considerations for deaf educators,
speech-language pathologists and auditory-verbal practitioners
as they work to design effective spoken language and pre-literacy
intervention for preschool children with hearing loss.
References
- Tye-Murray N. Foundations of aural rehabilitation, children, adults, and their family members. 2013.
- Geers AE, Moog JS, Biedenstein J, Brenner C, Hayes H. Spoken language scores of children using cochlear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2009; 14: 371-385.
- Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, Eisenberg LS, Wang NY, Quittner AL, et al. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA. 2010; 303: 1498-1506.
- Tobey EA, Thal D, Niparko JK, Eisenberg LS, Quittner AL, Wang NY. Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol. 2013; 52: 219-229.
- Yoshinaga-Itano C, Baca RL, Sedey AL. Describing the trajectory of language development in the presence of severe-to-profound hearing loss: a closer look at children with cochlear implants versus hearing aids. Otol Neurotol. 2010; 31: 1268-1274.
- Geers AE, Nicholas JG. Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013; 56: 643-655.
- AG Bell Academy for Listening and Spoken Language. (July 8, 2015). Principles of LSLS Auditory-Verbal Therapy.
- Hocutt AM. Effectiveness of special education: is placement the critical factor?. Future Child. 1996; 6: 77-102.
- Douglas M. Improving Spoken Language Outcomes for Children with Hearing Loss: Data-driven Instruction. Otol Neurotol. 2016; 37: e13-e19.
- Moog JS, Stein KS, Biedenstein JJ. Teacher Assessment of Spoken Language. St. Louis, MO: The Moog Center for Deaf Education. 2003.
- . Semel E, Wiig E, Secord W. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool Level 2. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. 2004.
- Brownell R. Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, CA: Pearson. 2010.
- Goldman R, Fristoe M. Goldman Fristoe 2 Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: PsychCorp. 2000.
- Bunta F, Douglas M. The effects of dual-language support on the language skills of bilingual children with hearing loss who use listening devices relative to their monolingual peers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2013; 44: 281-290.
- Deriaz M, Pelizzone M, Pérez Fornos A. Simultaneous development of 2 oral languages by child cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35: 1541-1544.
- Guiberson M. Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain. Cochlear Implants Int. 2014; 15: 87-92.
- Rhoades EA, Chisolm TH. Global language progress with an auditoryverbal approach for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Volta Review. 2010; 102: 5-25.
- Teschendorf M, Janeschik S, Bagus H, Lang S, Arweiler-Harbeck D. Speech development after cochlear implantation in children from bilingual homes. Otol Neurotol. 2011; 32: 229-235.
- Waltzman SB, Robbins AM, Green JE, Cohen NL. Second oral language capabilities in children with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2003; 24: 757-763.
- Bunta F. Douglas M, Dickson H, Cantu A, Wickesberg J, Gifford RH. Dual language versus English-only support for bilingual children with hearing loss who use cochlear implants and hearing aids. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016; 51: 460-472.
- Zimmerman IL, Steiner VG, Pond RE. Preschool language scale-4, Spanish edition; San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. 2011.
- Lund E, Douglas WM, Schuele CM. Semantic richness and word learning in children with hearing loss who are developing spoken language: A single case design study. Deafness & Education International. 2015; 17: 163-175.
- BobzienJL, Richels C, Schwartz K, Raver SA, Hester P, Morin L. Using repeated reading and explicit instruction to teach vocabulary to preschoolers with hearing loss. Infants and Young Children. 2015; 28: 262-280.
- Sacks C, Shay S, Repplinger L, Leffel KR, Sapolich SG, Suskind E, et al. Pilot testing of a parent-directed intervention (Project ASPIRE) for underserved children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2013; 30, 91-102.
- Lund E, Douglas M. Teaching vocabulary to preschool children with hearing loss: A comparison of three conditions. Exceptional Children. 2016.
- Trybus RJ, Karchmer MA. School achievement scores of hearing impaired children: National data on achievement status and growth patterns. Am Ann Deaf. 1977; 122: 62-69.
- Qi S, Mitchell RE. Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2012; 17: 1-18.
- Werfel KL, Douglas M. Ackal L. Small-group phonological awareness training for pre-kindergarten children with hearing loss who wear cochlear implants and/or hearing aids. Deafness & Education International. 2016.