Developmental Profiles of Young Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Their Associated Predictors.
Natalie Zehnwirth, Libby Smith, Daisy A Shepherd and 1 others
PMID 40611465WHAT IT FOUND
Deaf and hard of hearing children show higher rates of developmental delay than the general population, with 35% scoring below cut-off in communication.
Prematurity, low birthweight, and medical comorbidities predict delays across all domains, regardless of hearing loss severity.
Key findings
0135% of children scored below cut-off in communication, 24% in fine motor, 23% in problem solving, 21% in gross motor, and 20% in personal social domains.
02Extreme prematurity, low birthweight, and presence of comorbidities were associated with below cut-off scores across multiple developmental domains.
03Children enrolled in or referred to early intervention had higher odds of scoring below cut-off in communication, problem-solving, and personal-social skills, likely reflecting their lower baseline functioning at referral.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat 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
The ASQ has not been formally validated for use in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing population, so scores may not accurately reflect true developmental status. The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot determine causality or track developmental trajectories over time. There was missing data for several predictors, particularly birthweight and comorbidities, which limits the precision of these associations. Selection bias may exist, as responders were from less socio-economically disadvantaged areas than non-responders.
Declared interests
No specific conflicts of interest or funding sources were declared in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the association between early intervention enrolment and lower developmental scores as evidence that the intervention is harmful or ineffective. The data suggests children were referred to services because they already had delays, not that the services caused them.