Rachael Frush Holt1, Jessica Beer2,3, William G Kronenberger2,4, David B Pisoni2,5, Kaylah Lalonde6, Lindsay Mulinaro6. 1. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 3. The Urban Chalkboard, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 5. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. 6. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in family environment and associations between family environment and key speech, language, and cognitive outcomes in samples of children with normal hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children who use hearing aids and cochlear implants. DESIGN: Thirty families of children with normal hearing (n = 10), hearing aids (n = 10), or cochlear implants (n = 10) completed questionnaires evaluating executive function, social skills, and problem behaviors. Children's language and receptive vocabulary were evaluated using standardized measures in the children's homes. In addition, families were administered a standardized in-home questionnaire and observational assessment regarding the home environment. RESULTS: Family environment overall was similar across hearing level and sensory aid, although some differences were found on parental responsivity and physical environment. The level of supportiveness and enrichment within family relationships accounted for much of the relations between family environment and the psychosocial and neurocognitive development of DHH children. In contrast, the availability of objects and experiences to stimulate learning in the home was related to the development of spoken language. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas broad characteristics of the family environments of DHH children may not differ from those of hearing children, variability in family functioning is related to DHH children's at-risk speech, language, and cognitive outcomes. Results support the importance of further research to clarify and explain these relations, which might suggest novel methods and targets of family-based interventions to improve developmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in family environment and associations between family environment and key speech, language, and cognitive outcomes in samples of children with normal hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children who use hearing aids and cochlear implants. DESIGN: Thirty families of children with normal hearing (n = 10), hearing aids (n = 10), or cochlear implants (n = 10) completed questionnaires evaluating executive function, social skills, and problem behaviors. Children's language and receptive vocabulary were evaluated using standardized measures in the children's homes. In addition, families were administered a standardized in-home questionnaire and observational assessment regarding the home environment. RESULTS: Family environment overall was similar across hearing level and sensory aid, although some differences were found on parental responsivity and physical environment. The level of supportiveness and enrichment within family relationships accounted for much of the relations between family environment and the psychosocial and neurocognitive development of DHHchildren. In contrast, the availability of objects and experiences to stimulate learning in the home was related to the development of spoken language. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas broad characteristics of the family environments of DHHchildren may not differ from those of hearing children, variability in family functioning is related to DHHchildren's at-risk speech, language, and cognitive outcomes. Results support the importance of further research to clarify and explain these relations, which might suggest novel methods and targets of family-based interventions to improve developmental outcomes.
Authors: Jessica Beer; William G Kronenberger; Irina Castellanos; Bethany G Colson; Shirley C Henning; David B Pisoni Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Shanley Mangeot; Kira Armstrong; Andrew N Colvin; Keith Owen Yeates; H Gerry Taylor Journal: Child Neuropsychol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Izabela A Jamsek; Rachael Frush Holt; William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 2.674
Authors: Andrew Blank; Rachael Frush Holt; David B Pisoni; William G Kronenberger Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 2.297