Communication Outcomes of Children with Hearing Loss: A Comparison of Two Early Intervention Approaches.

Aisha Casoojee, Katijah Khoza-Shangase, Amisha Kanji
Author Information
  1. Aisha Casoojee: Department of Audiology, Faculty of Humanities, School of Human and Community Development, Braamfontein East Campus, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa. ORCID
  2. Katijah Khoza-Shangase: Department of Audiology, Faculty of Humanities, School of Human and Community Development, Braamfontein East Campus, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa. ORCID
  3. Amisha Kanji: Department of Audiology, Faculty of Humanities, School of Human and Community Development, Braamfontein East Campus, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early intervention approaches play a critical role in shaping the communication outcomes of children with hearing loss, influencing their language development and overall learning trajectory.
OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare the communication outcomes of children with hearing loss who received Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa (LSL-SA) with those who received Traditional Speech-Language Therapy (TSLT).
METHODS: A retrospective record review was conducted to gather data on communication outcomes from participants' speech-language therapy records. Communication outcomes were measured using standardized assessments evaluating speech intelligibility, expressive vocabulary, receptive language, expressive language, audition, and cognitive-linguistic skills. The data were analyzed using quantitative statistics. Key statistical methods included measures to determine associations, identify statistical significance, determine outcomes, and compare differences between the two groups.
RESULTS: The study found that children in the LSL-SA group had statistically significant better communication outcomes, with 63% achieving age-appropriate speech intelligibility compared to 45% in the TSLT group ( = 0.046). Similar trends were observed for expressive vocabulary (LSL-SA: 58% vs. TSLT: 39%, = 0.048) and receptive language (LSL-SA: 60% vs. TSLT: 39%, = 0.043). Additionally, 66% of children in the LSL-SA group were recommended for mainstream schooling, compared to 39% in the TSLT group ( = 0.0023). These findings highlight the importance of early amplification and structured intervention in improving communication outcomes. The results also emphasize the importance of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) in decreasing the odds of delay in communication outcomes, irrespective of the type of communication approach, although a higher proportion of children in the LSL-SA approach group achieved age-appropriate communication outcomes than those in the TSLT group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that communication intervention approaches aligned with the LSL-SA practice promote better communication development and enhance spoken language outcomes in children with hearing loss, facilitating successful transitions to mainstream schooling. Contribution: This study provides contextually relevant evidence for implementing an LSL-SA intervention approach for children with hearing loss. The implications of these findings for clinical practice and future research are discussed in detail.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS Med. 2021 May 10;18(5):e1003602 [PMID: 33970913]
  2. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2015;62(1):E1-10 [PMID: 26809156]
  3. N Engl J Med. 2006 May 18;354(20):2131-41 [PMID: 16707750]
  4. Front Cell Neurosci. 2020 Sep 10;14:283 [PMID: 33132842]
  5. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2014 Nov 11;61(1):e1-e8 [PMID: 26305440]
  6. Cochlear Implants Int. 2018 Jan;19(1):38-45 [PMID: 29058555]
  7. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015 Apr;20(2):115-24 [PMID: 25583707]
  8. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jan;28(84):13-21 [PMID: 26877999]
  9. BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Apr 28;23(1):297 [PMID: 37118705]
  10. Ear Hear. 2020 Jul/Aug;41(4):720-732 [PMID: 31633598]
  11. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 Jun;17(3):325-33 [PMID: 25958792]
  12. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Mar 1;60(3):701-711 [PMID: 28241207]
  13. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):e82-95 [PMID: 26756160]
  14. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Dec;76(12):1785-94 [PMID: 23084781]
  15. Int J Audiol. 2018 May;57(sup2):S105-S111 [PMID: 29020839]
  16. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 28;17(7):e0271497 [PMID: 35901116]
  17. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Oct;78(10):1716-25 [PMID: 25139133]
  18. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jan 30;62(1):143-152 [PMID: 30535174]
  19. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 May;140(5):403-9 [PMID: 24700303]
  20. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2016 Mar 18;63(1): [PMID: 27247254]
  21. Dev Psychol. 2013 Jan;49(1):15-30 [PMID: 22845829]
  22. Am Ann Deaf. 2011 Winter;155(5):580-91 [PMID: 21449255]
  23. Glob Pediatr Health. 2018 Apr 20;5:2333794X18770079 [PMID: 29761140]
  24. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Jan 12;3:16094 [PMID: 28079113]
  25. Int J Audiol. 2018 May;57(sup2):S81-S92 [PMID: 27541363]
  26. Bull World Health Organ. 2019 Oct 1;97(10):722-724 [PMID: 31656339]
  27. Med Humanit. 2025 Jan 20;: [PMID: 39837605]
  28. Am J Audiol. 2015 Sep;24(3):345-8 [PMID: 26649545]
  29. Am Ann Deaf. 2014 Winter;158(5):539-54 [PMID: 24745108]
  30. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2024 Mar 19;71(1):e1-e4 [PMID: 38572898]
  31. JAMA. 2020 Dec 01;324(21):2195-2205 [PMID: 33258894]
  32. Early Hum Dev. 2010 Apr;86(4):255-60 [PMID: 20457497]
  33. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Mar;77(3):394-8 [PMID: 23266158]
  34. Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Feb;21(2):158-65 [PMID: 26584722]
  35. BMC Pediatr. 2016 Mar 22;16:45 [PMID: 27004530]
  36. J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 30;9(2): [PMID: 32019213]
  37. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1701-8 [PMID: 20959580]
  38. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2022 Jan 31;69(1):e1-e12 [PMID: 35144437]
  39. Cochlear Implants Int. 2014 May;15(3):121-35 [PMID: 24867056]
  40. BMJ. 2012 Mar 02;344:e615 [PMID: 22389341]
  41. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2024 Oct 28;71(1):e1-e6 [PMID: 39494636]
  42. J Otol. 2022 Jul;17(3):130-135 [PMID: 35847570]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0communicationoutcomeschildrenhearinglanguageLSL-SAgroupinterventionlossstudyTSLT=0Earlytherapyexpressive39%approachapproachesdevelopmentcomparereceivedAfricadataspeech-languageCommunicationusingspeechintelligibilityvocabularyreceptivestatisticaldeterminebetterage-appropriatecomparedLSL-SA:vsTSLT:mainstreamschoolingfindingsimportanceearlyHearingInterventionpracticespokenBACKGROUND:playcriticalroleshapinginfluencingoveralllearningtrajectoryOBJECTIVES:mainobjectiveListeningSpokenLanguage-SouthTraditionalSpeech-LanguageTherapyMETHODS:retrospectiverecordreviewconductedgatherparticipants'recordsmeasuredstandardizedassessmentsevaluatingauditioncognitive-linguisticskillsanalyzedquantitativestatisticsKeymethodsincludedmeasuresassociationsidentifysignificancedifferencestwogroupsRESULTS:foundstatisticallysignificant63%achieving45%046Similartrendsobserved58%04860%043Additionally66%recommended0023highlightamplificationstructuredimprovingresultsalsoemphasizeDetectionEHDIdecreasingoddsdelayirrespectivetypealthoughhigherproportionachievedCONCLUSIONS:highlightsalignedpromoteenhancefacilitatingsuccessfultransitionsContribution:providescontextuallyrelevantevidenceimplementingimplicationsclinicalfutureresearchdiscusseddetailOutcomesChildrenLoss:ComparisonTwoApproachesSouthauditory���verbaldetectioninclusiveeducationlistening

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.