Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF POLISH
CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
AT THE END OF THEIR PRIMARY EDUCATION
1
Implants and Auditory Perception Department, Institute of Physiology and Pathology
of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany, Poland
2
Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Surgery Clinic, Institute of Physiology and Pathology
of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany, Poland
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2019-03-31
Corresponding author
Malgorzata Zgoda
Malgorzata Zgoda, ul. Mokra 17, Kajetany, 05-830 Nadarzyn, +48 223560334, email address: m.zgoda@ifps.org.pl
Malgorzata Zgoda, ul. Mokra 17, Kajetany, 05-830 Nadarzyn, +48 223560334, email address: m.zgoda@ifps.org.pl
J Hear Sci 2019;9(1):25-31
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Pediatric cochlear implant programs have been running in clinics around the world for more than 30 years. Application of a cochlear implant gives a deaf child the possibility of acquiring communication skills as good as those of their hearing peers. Reports of the school performance of deaf students who use cochlear implants are scarce. Reliable information is constrained by the difficulty of obtaining results from large groups of students with cochlear implants and of standardised tools to assess their academic abilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores on a primary school competency test from children using cochlear implants and to compare them with scores from their typical hearing peers from Poland.
Materials and Methods:
The study group comprised 160 children with prelingual hearing loss. The measures for evaluating school achievements were the results of a standardised test at the end of primary school. Twenty one percent of the CI children did the standard version of the test (without any adjustments to the needs of students with a hearing loss), while the other 79% did an adjusted version of the test.
Results:
In general, the mean scores achieved by the CI children who did the standard version of the school test were slightly better than the mean results of the typical hearing group sitting the same test. The differences of means in favor of CI children were 3.4 points in overall score (which had a maximum of 40 points), and 0.3, 1.3, 0.7, 0.7, and 0.6 respectively on the subscales of reading, writing, reasoning, using information, and practical application of knowledge. However, on an adjusted version of the test, the mean scores obtained by the CI children were somewhat lower than the mean scores for all the children doing the same test (2 points in overall score, and 1.1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.02, and 0.2 on each respective subscale).
Summary:
The 21% of CI children who did the standard version of the school test (without any adjustments) had results which were on a par with those of children with normal hearing. The 79% who did the adjusted version of the test had results which were comparable to those of hard-of-hearing children.
Pediatric cochlear implant programs have been running in clinics around the world for more than 30 years. Application of a cochlear implant gives a deaf child the possibility of acquiring communication skills as good as those of their hearing peers. Reports of the school performance of deaf students who use cochlear implants are scarce. Reliable information is constrained by the difficulty of obtaining results from large groups of students with cochlear implants and of standardised tools to assess their academic abilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores on a primary school competency test from children using cochlear implants and to compare them with scores from their typical hearing peers from Poland.
Materials and Methods:
The study group comprised 160 children with prelingual hearing loss. The measures for evaluating school achievements were the results of a standardised test at the end of primary school. Twenty one percent of the CI children did the standard version of the test (without any adjustments to the needs of students with a hearing loss), while the other 79% did an adjusted version of the test.
Results:
In general, the mean scores achieved by the CI children who did the standard version of the school test were slightly better than the mean results of the typical hearing group sitting the same test. The differences of means in favor of CI children were 3.4 points in overall score (which had a maximum of 40 points), and 0.3, 1.3, 0.7, 0.7, and 0.6 respectively on the subscales of reading, writing, reasoning, using information, and practical application of knowledge. However, on an adjusted version of the test, the mean scores obtained by the CI children were somewhat lower than the mean scores for all the children doing the same test (2 points in overall score, and 1.1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.02, and 0.2 on each respective subscale).
Summary:
The 21% of CI children who did the standard version of the school test (without any adjustments) had results which were on a par with those of children with normal hearing. The 79% who did the adjusted version of the test had results which were comparable to those of hard-of-hearing children.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Karchmer M, Allen T. The functional assessment of deaf and hard of hearing students. Am Ann Deaf, 1999; 144: 68-77.
2.
Venail F, Vieu A, Artieres F, Mondain M, Uziel A. Educational and employment achievements in prelingually deaf children who receive cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2010; 136: 366-72.
3.
Schroeder L, Petrou S, Kennedy C, et al. The economic costs of congenital bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics, 2006; 117(4), 1101-12.
4.
Schley S, Walter G, Weathers R, Hemmeter J, Hennessey J, Burkhauser R. Effect of postsecondary education on the economic status of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu, 2011; 16(4), 524-36.
5.
Van Gent T, Sleeboom-van Raaij I. Mental health problems in deaf and severely hard-of-hearing children and adolescents: an overview. In: Marschark M, Lampropoulou V, Skordilis E, eds. Diversity in Deaf Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. pp. 381–416.
6.
Hendar O, O’Neill R. Monitoring the achievement of deaf pupils in Sweden and Scotland: approaches and outcome. Deafness and Education International, 2016; 18, 47–56.
7.
Lederberg A, Schick B, Spencer P. Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: successes and challenges. Develop Psychol, 2013; 49, 15–30.
8.
Punch R, Hyde M. Communication, psychosocial, and educational outcomes of children with cochlear implants and challenges remaining for professionals and parents. Int J Otolaryngol, 2011; Article ID 573280.
9.
Thoutenhoofd E. Cochlear implanted pupils in Scottish schools: 4-year school attainment data (2000–2004). J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu, 2006; 11(2), 171-88.
10.
Traxler C. The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu, 2000; 5, 337–48.
11.
Berliner K, Luxford W, House W, Tonokawa L. Cochlear implants in children. In: Myers E, Bluestone C, Brackmann D, Krause C, eds: Advances in Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Vol 4. St Louis, MO. Mosby Year Book, 1990, pp 61-79.
12.
Obrycka A, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Skarżyński H. Ocena rozwoju słuchowego dzieci z głębokim niedosłuchem, którym wszczepiono implant ślimakowy we wczesnym dzieciństwie, Now Audiofonol, 2014; 3(5): 59–65.
13.
Tajudeen B, Waltzman S, Jethanamest D, Svirsky M. Speech perception in congenitally deaf children receiving cochlear implants in the first year of life. Otol Neurotol, 2010; 31: 1254–60.
14.
De Raeve L. A longitudinal study on auditory perception and speech intelligibility in deaf children implanted younger than 18 months in comparison to those implanted at later ages. Otol Neurotol, 2010; 31(8), 1261-7.
15.
Olusanya B, Neumann K, Saunders J. The global burden of disabling hearing impairment: a call to action. Bull World Health Organization, 2014; 92(5), 367-73.
16.
Nagle K, Newman L, Shaver D, Marschark M. College and career readiness: course taking of deaf and hard of hearing secondary school students. Am Ann Deaf, 2016; 160, 467–82.
17.
Rydberg E, Gellerstedt L, Danermark B. Toward an equal level of educational attainment between deaf and hearing people in Sweden? J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu, 2009; 14, 312–23.
18.
Winn S. Employment outcomes for people in Australia who are congenitally deaf: has anything changed? Am Ann Deaf, 2007; 152, 382–90.
19.
Skarżyński H, Janczewski G, Geremek A, Niemczyk K, Klasek O, Kochanek K. Pierwszy wszczep ślimakowy w Polsce. Otolaryngol Pol, 1993; 47(5): 427.
20.
Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 30 kwietnia 2007 r. w sprawie warunków i sposobu oceniania, klasyfikowania i promowania uczniów i słuchaczy oraz przeprowadzania sprawdzianów i egzaminów w szkołach publicznych.
21.
Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 17 listopada 2010 r. w sprawie warunków organizowania kształcenia, wychowania i opieki dla dzieci i młodzieży niepełnosprawnych oraz niedostosowanych społecznie w przedszkolach, szkołach i oddziałach ogólnodostępnych lub integracyjnych.
23.
Spencer L, Gantz B, Knutson J. Outcomes and achievement of students who grew up with access to cochlear implants. Laryngoscope, 2004; 114(9), 1576-81.
24.
Wu C, Liu T, Liao P, Chen C, Chang B, Lin B. Academic achievements and classroom performance in Mandarin-speaking prelingually deafened school children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2013; 77(9), 1474-80.
25.
Zgoda M, Obrycka A, Putkiewicz-Aleksandrowicz J, Lorens A, Skarżyński H. Analiza porównawcza osiągnięć szkolnych trzynastolatków korzystających z implantu ślimakowego wszczepionego im przed ukończeniem 3 roku życia i słyszących rówieśników. Now Audiofonol, 2014; 3(5), 66-74.
26.
Sarant J, Harris D, Bennet L. Academic outcomes for school-aged children with severe-profound hearing loss and early unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2015; 58, 1017-32.
27.
Tobey E, Thal D, Niparko J, Eisenberg L, Quittner A, Wang N. Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users, Int J Audiol, 2013; 52(4): 219-29.
28.
O’Neill R, Arendt J, Marschark M. Report from the Achievement and Opportunities for Deaf Students in the United Kingdom: from Research to Practice project, 2014; Available from: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.....
29.
Motasaddi-Zarandy M, Rezai H, Mahdavi-Arab M, Golestan B. The scholastic achievement of profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants compared to their normal peers. Arch Iran Med, 2009; 12(5), 441-7.
30.
Uczniowie ze specjalnymi potrzebami edukacyjnymi wg typów szkół: wg stanu na 30 września 2011. System Informacji Oświatowej. Available from: http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/inde....
31.
Uczniowie ze specjalnymi potrzebami edukacyjnymi wg typów szkół: wg stanu na 30 września 2012. System Informacji Oświatowej. Available from: http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/inde....
32.
Uczniowie ze specjalnymi potrzebami edukacyjnymi wg województw w roku szkolnym 2013/2014: wg stanu na 30.09.2013 r. System Informacji Oświatowej. Available from: http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/inde....
33.
Sarant J, Hughes K, Blamey P. The effect of IQ on spoken language and speech perception development in children with impaired hearing. Cochlear Implants Int, 2010; 11 (Suppl 1), 370-74.
34.
Marschark M, Shaver D, Nagle K, Newman L. Predicting the academic achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing students from individual, household, communication, and educational factors. Except Child, 2015; 81(3), 350-69.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
