Academic journal article American Annals of the Deaf

The Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Identified Early through the High-Risk Registry

Academic journal article American Annals of the Deaf

The Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Identified Early through the High-Risk Registry

Article excerpt

The high-risk registry was used as a screening device for identifying hearing loss for many decades in Colorado. It reportedly missed approximately 50% of all infants with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (Mehl & Thomson, 1998; Parving, 1993; Watkins, Baldwin, & McEnery, 1991). Little is known about the developmental characteristics of this population. This article describes children identified through the high-risk registry. These children have been divided into two groups according to their age of identification: (a) deaf and hard of hearing children identified before age 6 months, and (b) deaf and hard of hearing children identified between ages 7 and 18 months. The children identified before age 6 months and receiving intervention at an average of 2 to 3 months after identification of hearing loss had significantly higher levels of receptive and expressive language, personal-social development, expressive and receptive vocabulary, general development, situation comprehension, and vowel production. The high-risk registry used for newborn hearing screening has been replaced by universal newborn physiological hearing screening in the state of Colorado.

Prior to 1993, newborn high-risk registry screening was used to identify children at risk for hearing loss in Colorado in most birthing hospitals. In 1997, the state legislature passed a bill that put universal newborn hearing screening in effect in the state. However, few children with hearing loss are actually identified in the period shortly after birth through the registry. For instance, in a study describing the characteristics of 69 children in Colorado at a testing age of approximately 40 months (Apuzzo & Yoshinaga-Itano, 1995), only 14 children, with a developmental cognitive quotient of 60 or higher, had been identified as deaf or hard of hearing by age 2 months, even after a 10-year period of data collection. The participants in the study were all children who had received weekly intervention services through the Colorado Home Intervention Program (CHIP) within an average of 2 to 3 months following detection of the hearing loss. All of them had hearing parents. Significant developmental advantage was evidenced for the early-identified group in expressive language. The mean expressive language developmental quotient (DQ) for the earliest-identified children was at the low end of the normal range of development: a DQ of 84. No significant differences were found when comparing the children identified from 3 months of age through 30 months of age. One question that was not answered was whether this developmental advantage is present prior to an average testing age of 40 months.

In a subsequent study, YoshinagaItano, Sedey, Coulter, & Mehl (in press) reported the development of 150 deaf and hard of hearing infants and toddlers in four age-of- identification groups: (a) before 6 months, (b) 6 to 12 months, (c) 13 to 18 months, and (d) 19 to 24 months, at four test ages: (a) 12 to 18 months, (b) 19 to 24 months, (c) 25 to 30 months, and (d) 31 to 36 months. All of the children had hearing parents. Most of the earlyidentified group of 72 children were identified through universal newborn hearing screening programs in Colorado. The results of this study replicated the results reported in Apuzzo and Yoshinaga-Itano (1995). The large sample size allowed a comparison of children with cognitive ability within the normal range (DQ = 80 or above) with those children with low cognitive ability (DQ = 20 to 79). The effects of early identification of hearing loss were found for the total group, and also within each demographic variable: (a) gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) maternal level of education, (d) Medicaid status, (e) degree of hearing loss, (f) the presence of no additional disabilities versus the presence of secondary disabilities, and (g) mode of communication.

In an attempt to further identify what the definition of early identification and late identification of hearing loss should be, a third study (N = 40), conducted by Yoshinaga-Itano and Apuzzo (1998), compared a high-risk registry sample identified prior to age 6 months and receiving intervention within an average of 2 to 3 months following detection of hearing loss, with a sample identified with hearing loss after age 18 months and also receiving intervention within an average of 2 to 3 months following detection of hearing loss. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.