Capability of Children with Hearing Devices: A Mixed Methods Study.
Wouter J Rijke, Anneke M Vermeulen, Christina Willeboer and 3 others
PMID 37128638WHAT IT FOUND
In interviews, 34 children with hearing devices described doing many of the same things as 30 typical hearing peers, but needed devices, family support, school settings, and acceptance to keep doing them.
Key findings
01Children with hearing devices described many of the same daily activities as typical hearing children, but needed devices, support, and settings that let them take part.
02Five children with hearing devices scored in the lowest quartile on at least three of seven test measures; they were all boys with a cochlear implant in special education.
03Relatively high-performing children with hearing devices did not report major daily problems, but described limits from devices in ice skating, sailing, busy classrooms, hearing direction in traffic, and empty batteries.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Non-Dutch-speaking children and children with additional severe complex needs who could not express themselves in an interview were excluded. Children with hearing devices were interviewed at an outpatient clinic, while typical hearing children were interviewed at school. Typical hearing children all attended the same school, so their activities may reflect that school and area. Typical hearing children were interviewed in groups, which may have affected openness and honesty. The interviewer was typical hearing, and his background may have shaped questions and responses. The study looked at children aged 8 to 12, so it may not capture social challenges that appear later in adolescence. The authors state that the findings cannot be extrapolated to all children with hearing devices.
Declared interests
The supplied metadata lists non-U.S. government research support. The article text does not state who funded the study, whether the sponsor designed or wrote it, or author conflicts.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the difference between the five poor scorers and the ten high scorers as proof that a device or school setting caused fewer friends. The five poor scorers were all boys with a cochlear implant in special education, and the study only described their interviews.