1 / 44

Minimal Hearing Loss: Impact & Treatment

Minimal Hearing Loss: Impact & Treatment. Arlene Stredler Brown Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind (CSDB) University of Colorado - Boulder Marion Downs Hearing Center @ University of Colorado Hospital. Collecting the Evidence; Asking the Questions.

hhayes
Download Presentation

Minimal Hearing Loss: Impact & Treatment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Minimal Hearing Loss: Impact & Treatment Arlene Stredler Brown Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind (CSDB) University of Colorado - Boulder Marion Downs Hearing Center @ University of Colorado Hospital

  2. Collecting the Evidence; Asking the Questions • A portion of school-age children with unilateral hearing loss experience academic delays….. Do children with UHL, in the birth – 3 population, experience delays? If so, is the percentage the same? • Do children, birth – 3, with minimal hearing loss require intervention?

  3. Part C Eligibility for Children with Minimal Hearing Loss.. (NCHAM Survey, 2002) • 46 states (including DC) reporting: • All 46 states have established risk conditions that make a child eligible for Part C-funded services • 40 states list specific conditions for eligibility • 30 states note hearing loss as a specific condition • 15 states operationally define hearing loss in their State Plan or other official documents

  4. State of the States • 11 states define mild hearing as eligible for Part C services • 7 states define UHL as eligible for Part C services (some limit degree of hearing loss) • Some states require an eligible condition to be associated with a “high probability of significant developmental delay” (>90%) • Some states determine eligibility if/when “appropriate treatment still leaves significant impairment”

  5. Eligibility for EHDI Programs • Each state operationally defines their own screening procedures, diagnostic criteria, and early intervention • Intervention is, to varying degrees, determined in collaboration with different initiatives & funding sources • Part C • Schools for the Deaf • Private treatment centers

  6. Collecting the Evidence Mild Hearing Loss

  7. Mild Hearing Loss: Colorado Outcome Data • As a group, children with mild, bilateral hearing loss have better language skills than children with more severe degrees of hearing loss • As a group, children with mild, bilateral hearing loss do not have language quotients comparable to their hearing peers

  8. Treatment Data • Colorado’s model supports direct services to all children with bilateral, mild hearing loss • Intensity of services is identified on the IFSP

  9. Mild Loss Moderate Loss Moderate / Severe Severe Loss Profound Loss Mom < HS Education Mom > HS Education No Medicaid Medicaid Hearing Loss Only Multiple Disabilities By 6 Months After 6 Months The early identification effect on language (N=85) MCDI Total Language Quotient (Mean) Yoshinaga-Itano, et al (1998)

  10. Collecting the Evidence Unilateral Hearing Loss

  11. History of the Colorado Project… • Identification of need subsequent to the start of UNHS • BCHD repeatedly asked for guidance for families of very young children with UHL • Started in 1997 by the Colorado Home Intervention Program (CHIP) at the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind (CSDB) in collaboration with the University of Colorado-Boulder

  12. History • Purpose: To identify if the negative impact of UHL on some school-age children is apparent during the birth – 5 years • Purpose: To confirm a need to change current practices regarding young children with UHL • “Don’t worry, your child has one good ear”. • “Be sure to arrange for preferential seating when your child starts school”.

  13. Guiding Principles • Establish an assessment protocol to monitor development of individual children and the total group • A professional with expertise related to hearing loss is the family’s primary contact person, answers questions, provides consultation • The audiologist coordinates with the other professionals involved in the child’s/family’s care; physician, clinical audiologist, Part C service coordinator, direct service providers

  14. Participants in the Project • Six counties in Denver-metro area • 30 children in the original database • Identified by diagnosing audiologist and/or EHDI database at CDPHE • Designated service coordinator (a clinical audiologist) contacts families • Initial contact by phone • Offers home visit • Provides written materials: UHL brochure, CHIP brochure, “Tips for UHL”, current articles • Explains pilot project including FAMILY Assessment

  15. The FAMILY Assessment • Multi-disciplinary assessment consisting of videotaped interaction and parent-completed protocols • Receptive & expressive language: vocabulary, syntax, speech intelligibility, articulation • Cognitive/play skills • Gross/fine motor skills • Social-emotional skills • Functional auditory skill development • Functional vision checklist • Family Needs Survey

  16. Unilateral to Bilateral Loss • 30 children initially identified with unilateral loss • 2 (7%) progressed to bilateral within first year of life • 2 (7%) later diagnosed with bilateral losses that apparently were present from birth • One mild (30dB) in poorer ear • One moderate low frequency loss with normal high frequency hearing

  17. State of Residence

  18. Gender

  19. Ethnicity

  20. Additional Disabilities

  21. Socio-Economic Status 1n = 24 2n = 22

  22. Mode of Communication

  23. Newborn Hearing Screening

  24. Age of Identification N = 24

  25. Age of Onset N = 25

  26. Etiology

  27. Malformation of Ear Structures

  28. Ear with Hearing Loss

  29. Degree of Loss N = 25

  30. Language Ability • Assessments: • Minnesota Child Development Inventory • MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories • Spontaneous language sample

  31. Minnesota Inventory • Participant Description: • 18 children • No additional disabilities • Selected oldest age available • Chronological age: • Range = 7 to 59 months • Mean = 25 months

  32. Minnesota Inventory • Test Description • Parent report questionnaire • Expressive and receptive language subscales • Language Quotient (LQ) derived • Language age/Chronological age x 100 • LQ of 100 means language age = chronological age

  33. Minnesota Inventory 5% of hearing children borderline or below average

  34. MacArthur Inventory: Expressive • Participant Description: • 12 children • No additional disabilities • Chronological age: • Range = 14 to 28 months • Mean = 21 months

  35. MacArthur Inventory: Receptive • Participant Description: • 11 children • No additional disabilities • Selected all children who were the appropriate age for the test • Chronological age: • Range = 12 to 16 months • Mean = 14.5 months

  36. MacArthur Inventories • Test Description • Assesses vocabulary abilities • Parent report questionnaire • Parent indicates words child can understand and produce • Percentile scores determined relative to test norms

  37. MacArthur Inventories 10% of hearing children would be expected to fall below the 10th percentile

  38. Spontaneous Language Sample • Participant Description: • 15 children • No additional disabilities • Selected oldest age available for each child • Chronological age: • Range = 15 to 62 months • Mean = 29 months

  39. Spontaneous Language Sample • Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) • 10 (67%) children within age expectations • 5 (33%) children below age expectations

  40. Summary of Language Results • 15 children examined across measures and time • Considered assessments after 12 months of age • No additional disabilities • Number of children with language delays • Delayed = 4 (27%) • Borderline = 1 (7%)

  41. Profile of 4 Children with Delays • Caucasian • Identified by 2 months of age • Congenital • Etiology unknown • Parents use oral communication only • Parental education 16 years or more • Annual income > $80,000

  42. Profile of Children with Delays • No outer or middle ear malformation • Affected ear: 50% right, 50% left • Degree of loss • All “severe or profound” (i.e., no response on ABR) or profound

  43. Current Case Studies from Colorado • 5 children with delays on developmental assessments • Chronological ages: 1-5 to 1-11 • Developmental delays in the following areas • Vocabulary development (n=5) • Receptive language (n=1) • MLU (n=1) • Speech development (n=1)

  44. Let’s remember…… Minimal is not inconsequential Bess, 2004

More Related