Rachael Frush Holt1, William G Kronenberger2,3, David B Pisoni3,4. 1. Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. 3. DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. 4. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether families of children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) are organized similarly to those of typically developing, typically hearing (TH) children and whether the dimensions of family dynamics and environment are related to spoken language development similarly in children with and without SNHL. METHOD: Primary caregivers of children with SNHL (n = 63) or TH (n = 65) completed the Family Environment Scale-Fourth Edition (FES-4) to assess multiple dimensions of family environment. Children's receptive vocabulary was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition, and their receptive language was assessed by an age-appropriate version of the Concepts and Following Directions subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals and the Sentence Comprehension subscale of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language-Second Edition. Principal component analysis was used to examine the dimensional structure of the family environment. RESULTS: Three higher order components were derived from FES-4 subscales for both families of children with SNHL and with TH: Supportive, Controlling, and Conflicted. However, the composition of the factors themselves differed between the two groups. For the TH group, most family environment measures on the FES-4 were not associated with language outcomes. In contrast, for children with SNHL, families who were more supportive, less controlling, and less conflicted had children with better language skills. CONCLUSIONS: Three well-accepted dimensions of family dynamics and functioning apply to families of children with SNHL, but their composition differs from those of families with TH children. Family environmental dynamics were much more strongly associated with language outcomes in children with SNHL than in their TH peers. The spoken language development of children with SNHL, in particular, is better in families that provide high levels of support for each other and, in particular, low levels of control, disorganization, and conflict, reflecting the fragile nature of their spoken language development.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether families of children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) are organized similarly to those of typically developing, typically hearing (TH) children and whether the dimensions of family dynamics and environment are related to spoken language development similarly in children with and without SNHL. METHOD: Primary caregivers of children with SNHL (n = 63) or TH (n = 65) completed the Family Environment Scale-Fourth Edition (FES-4) to assess multiple dimensions of family environment. Children's receptive vocabulary was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition, and their receptive language was assessed by an age-appropriate version of the Concepts and Following Directions subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals and the Sentence Comprehension subscale of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language-Second Edition. Principal component analysis was used to examine the dimensional structure of the family environment. RESULTS: Three higher order components were derived from FES-4 subscales for both families of children with SNHL and with TH: Supportive, Controlling, and Conflicted. However, the composition of the factors themselves differed between the two groups. For the TH group, most family environment measures on the FES-4 were not associated with language outcomes. In contrast, for children with SNHL, families who were more supportive, less controlling, and less conflicted had children with better language skills. CONCLUSIONS: Three well-accepted dimensions of family dynamics and functioning apply to families of children with SNHL, but their composition differs from those of families with TH children. Family environmental dynamics were much more strongly associated with language outcomes in children with SNHL than in their TH peers. The spoken language development of children with SNHL, in particular, is better in families that provide high levels of support for each other and, in particular, low levels of control, disorganization, and conflict, reflecting the fragile nature of their spoken language development.