a systematic review of the literature on...page | 3 appendix one critical appraisal form for...

Page | 1

A SYSTEMATIC

REVIEW OF THE

LITERATURE ON

EARLY INTERVENTION

FOR CHILDREN WITH

A PERMANENT

HEARING LOSS Volume II

Report prepared for Healthy Hearing Program Queensland Health Brisbane Queensland

Prepared by CAHE review team Centre for Allied Health Evidence University of South Australia Ph: 08 83022085 Fax: 08 83022766 Email [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Page | 2

Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix One: Critical appraisal form for quantitative studies (modified McMaster instrument)

3

Appendix Two: Critical appraisal form for qualitative studies (modified McMaster instrument)

5

Appendix Three: Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Tool

7

Appendix Four: Excluded publications prior to Critical Appraisal

8

Appendix Five: Excluded quantitative publications scoring less than 7

11

Appendix Six: Excluded qualitative publications scoring less than 7

16

Appendix Seven: Critical appraisal scores for quantitative research studies Appendix Eight: Critical appraisal scores for qualitative research studies Appendix Nine: Critical appraisal scores for systematic review

17

86

89

Appendix Ten: Content experts

90

Appendix Eleven: All publications with information about their study design, sample size, participants, intervention/focus, dependant variables/outcomes, independent variables and measures.

91

Appendix Twelve: Complete list of all outcome measures identified in this review

258

References included in this volume 271

Page | 3

Appendix One

Critical appraisal form for quantitative studies (modified McMaster instrument)

Note: ‘Yes’ or ‘NA’ (Not applicable) scores 1. ‘No’ or ‘Unable to determine’ scores 0. Publication: ________________________________________________________________ 1. NHMRC level of evidence: I Systematic review of RCTs II RCT III-1 Pseudorandomised controlled trial III-2 Non-randomised experimental trial Prospective cohort Case-control with concurrent controls III-3 Retrospective cohort Case-control with historical controls IV Case series with post-test outcomes Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Notes: A single case report is a case series (n=1). Cohort studies must have a control or comparison group or comparative data of some kind. The comparisons can be within the sample/population. A case series is a single group of people exposed to the intervention (uncontrolled study).

Level: _____

2. Study design: Quantitative Cross-sectional Qualitative Repeated measures Mixed method Study purpose: 3. Is the purpose of the study stated clearly? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

Literature: 4. Is relevant background literature reviewed? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

Sample: 5. Is the sample described in detail? Yes (1) No (0) In cohort studies and case series, inclusion and/or exclusion criteria should be given. In case-control studies, a case-definition and the source for controls should be given. In surveys the sampling frame should be described. 6. Were the participants representative of the population under

investigation? Yes (1) No (0) Unable to determine (0) NA (1) The participation rate should be indicated. It should be shown that there are no important differences between participants and non-participants.

Score: _____ Score: _____

7. Outcomes: Were the main outcome measures accurate (valid and reliable)? Yes (1) No (0) Unable to determine (0) The accuracy of ALL outcome measures must be demonstrated. References to other literature are sufficient provided it is clear that this literature demonstrates the accuracy of the measure(s).

Score: _____

Page | 4

Intervention: 8. Is the intervention clearly described? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) For cochlear implant (CI) studies there must be some information about the implant (e.g. number of channels, model, year of surgery) – just „CI‟ is not enough. 9. Are any co-interventions clearly described? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) For CI studies there must be some descriptive information about the type of adjunct communication program/method. Labels such as „oral‟ and „total communication‟ are not sufficient; there must be some additional information.

Score: _____

Score: _____

Results: 10. Are the methods of analysis appropriate? Yes (1) No (0) 11. Are the results reported in terms of statistical significance? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) 12. Was the sample large enough to show an important difference should

such a difference exist? Yes (1) No (0) Unable to determine (0) NA (1) The statistical power of the study should be reported. 13. Did the study identify possible confounding factors? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) 14. Did the study make some effort to deal with confounding variables? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) Ways to deal with confounders include randomisation, matching, sample design (e.g. excluding subjects with some confounding characteristic) and statistical correction (e.g. covariance, stratification). 15. Are the characteristics of participants lost to follow-up described? Yes (1) No (0) NA (1) Answer Yes if there were no losses to follow-up or the characteristics of those lost to follow-up are described. Answer No where a study does not describe the number and characteristics of patients lost to follow-up or if it is not clear whether there were losses. Score cross-sectional study designs as NA (1).

Score: _____ Score: _____ Score: _____ Score: _____ Score: _____

Score: _____

Conclusions: 16. Are the conclusions appropriate given the study methods and results? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

Page | 5

Appendix Two

Critical appraisal form for qualitative studies (modified McMaster instrument)

Note: ‘Yes’ or scores 1. ‘No’ or ‘Unable to determine’ scores 0. Publication: ________________________________________________________________ 1. Qualitative research method: What is the research method followed in the study? Grounded Theory Phenomenology Ethnography Participatory Action Research Other

Study purpose: 2. Is the purpose of the study stated clearly? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

Literature: 3. Is relevant background literature reviewed and theoretical perspective identified? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

4. Methodology used: Interviews Focus groups Historical Passive observation Participant observation Records or other documents Multiple data sources

Sample: 5. Was the process of purposeful selection described? Yes (1) No (0) 6. Was sampling done until redundancy in data was reached? Yes (1) No (0) 7. Was ethics obtained and informed consent obtained? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____ Score: _____ Score: _____

Data collection: 8. Are the data collection methods (descriptions of the site and participants) described in sufficient detail? Yes (1) No (0) 9. Were procedural rigour used in data collection? Yes (1) No (0)


Data analysis: 10. Is the process of transforming the data into themes/codes adequately described? Yes (1) No (0)

Score: _____

Page | 6

11. Were sufficient and appropriate processes used to establish the trustworthiness of the findings? Yes (1) No (0) Unable to determine (0) e.g. triangulation, member checking, independent coding or interpretation by other researchers

Score: _____

Results: 12. Does the report include original evidence, such as quotes from study participants and/or documents, to illustrate specific points and support conclusions drawn from the data? Yes (1) No (0) 13. Are the findings reported in sufficient detail so that the reader can evaluate the credibility of the conclusions? Yes (1) No (0)


Conclusions: 14. Are the conclusions appropriate given the study methods and results? Yes (1) No (0) 15. Are the conclusions presented within the context of other research and/or theory? Yes (1) No (0) 16. Are the conclusions relevant to other settings? Yes (1) No (0) Unable to determine (0)

Score: _____ Score: _____ Score: _____

Page | 7

Appendix Three

Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Tool

Reviewer____________________________________________ Author ________________________________ Year _______________

Yes No

Unclear

1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?

2. Was the search strategy appropriate?

3. Were the sources of studies adequate?

4. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?

5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?

6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?

7. Were there methods used to minimise error in data extraction?

8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?

9. Were the recommendations supported by the reported data? 10. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?

Page | 8

Appendix Four

Excluded publications prior to Critical Appraisal

Calderon R, Bargones J, Sidman S: Characteristics of hearing families and their young deaf and hard of hearing children: early intervention follow-up. American Annals of the Deaf 1998; 143(4):347-362

Removed Paper is merely descriptive – provides a profile of 28 children who had attended an early intervention program. There is a lot of descriptive data, and the paper may be useful background, but it does not report the outcomes of any intervention.

Capirci O, Iverson JM, Montanari S, Volterra V: Gestural, signed and spoken modalities in early language development: the role of linguistic input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2002; 5(1):25-37

Removed Subject is a hearing child and findings are not relevant. Potentially useful background.

Cheng AK, Grant GD, Niparko JK: Meta-analysis of pediatric cochlear implant literature. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. Supplement 1999; 177:124-8

Removed Several of the reviewed papers were published before 1995.

Desjardin JL: Maternal perceptions of self-efficacy and involvement in the auditory development of young children with prelingual deafness. Journal of Early Intervention 2005; 27(3):193-209

Removed Paper investigates self-efficacy in mothers of children with cochlear implants versus children with hearing aids. Does not provide any data on the relationship between self-efficacy and child outcomes.

Dornan, D. and J. Del Dot (1996). "The speech and language pathologist in a paediatric cochlear implant program: a case study." Australian Communication Quarterly (Winter).

Removed Not directly relevant to review aims.

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2006). Rate of progress in listening, language and speech development for children in an auditory-verbal program. Paper presented at the Qld Health Healthy Hearing Symposium, Brisbane, 29-30 November 2006

Added

Harris M, Mohay H: Learning to look in the right place: a comparison of attentional behavior in deaf children with deaf and hearing mothers. Journal of

Removed Compares deaf mothers with hearing mothers; does not

Page | 9

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1997; 2(2):95-103

elucidate the variables within the deaf group that may affect child outcomes.

Herman R, Roy P: The influence of child hearing status and type of exposure to BSL on BSL acquisition, in Child Language Seminar. London, 1999 Herman R, Roy P: Evidence from the wider use of the BSL Receptive Skills Test. Deafness and Education International 2006; 8(1):33-47

Removed Neither paper states age at identification/onset for the non-native signers. Nevertheless useful background articles.

Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 143-163). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Removed Does not state age at identification / onset / intervention. Nevertheless useful background.

Holowka, S., Brosseau-Lapre, F., & Petitto, L. A. (2002). Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying bilingual babies' first signs and words. Language Learning, 52(2), 205-262.

Removed Children are hearing. Potentially useful background.

Kileny, P. R., Zwolan, T. A., & Ashbaugh, C. (2001). The influence of age at implantation on performance with a cochlear implant in children. Otology & Neurotology, 22(1), 42-46.

Removed Age at onset / identification / intervention not stated. Useful background in pointing out the importance of separating the effects of age at implantation from duration of CI use.

Kirk, K. I., Miyamoto, R. T., Lento, C. L., Ying, E., O'Neill, T., & Fears, B. (2002). Effects of age at implantation in young children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 69-73.

Removed Data appears to be a subset of the larger dataset published in Kirk et al. (2002), Volta Review

Lederberg, A. R., Prezbindowski, A. K., & Spencer, P. E. (2000). Word-learning skills of deaf preschoolers: the development of novel mapping and rapid word-learning strategies. Child Development, 71(6), 1571-1585.

Removed Age at onset / identification / intervention not stated.

Page | 10

Peterson, C. C. (2004). Theory-of-mind development in oral deaf children with cochlear implants or conventional hearing aids. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 45(6), 1096-1106.


Pyman, B., Blamey, P., Lacy, P., Clark, G., & Dowell, R. (2000). The development of speech perception in children using cochlear implants: effects of etiologic factors and delayed milestones. American Journal of Otology, 21(1), 57-61.


Richter, B., Eissele, S., Laszig, R., & Lohle, E. (2002). Receptive and expressive language skills of 106 children with a minimum of 2 years' experience in hearing with a cochlear implant. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 64(2), 111-125.


Stallings, L. M., Gao, S., & Svirsky, M. A. (2000) Assessing the language abilities of pediatric cochlear implant users across a broad range of ages and performance abilities, Volta Review, 102(4), 215-235.

Removed Not appropriate – paper reports on psychometric validation of an assessment measure and the results are only incidental

Szagun, G. (1997). A longitudinal study of the acquisition of language by two German-speaking children with cochlear implants and of their mothers' speech. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 42(1), 55-71.

Removed Data is a more detailed subset of data in other papers by the same author.

Wang, N. M., Huang, T. S., Wu, C. M., Shen, S. Z., Lo, C., & Lin, C. K. (2004). Long-term outcome of school-aged children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 5(SUPPL. 1), 109-111.


Watson, L. (2002). The literacy development of children with cochlear implants at age seven. Deafness and Education International, 4(2), 84-98.


Page | 11

Appendix Five

Excluded quantitative publications

Scoring less than 7 Anderson, I, Weichbold, V, D'Haese, PSC, Szuchnik, J, Quevedo, MS, Martin, J, Dieler, WS & Phillips, L 2004 „Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two-what do the outcomes show us?‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 425-31.

Boothroyd, A & Boothroyd-Turner, D 2002 „Postimplantation audition and educational attainment in children with prelingually acquired profound deafness‟,

Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 5II, pp. 79-84.

Calmels, M. N., Saliba, I., Wanna, G., Cochard, N., Fillaux, J., Deguine, O., et al. (2004). Speech perception and speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68(3), 347-351. Diller, G, Graser, P & Schmalbrock, C 2001 „Early natural auditory-verbal education of children with profound hearing impairments in the Federal Republic of Germany: results of a 4 year study‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 219-26.

Eisenberg, LS, Johnson, KC, Martinez, AS, Cokely, CG, Tobey, EA, Quittner, AL, Fink, NE, Wang, NY & Niparko, JK 2006 „Speech recognition at 1-year follow-up in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study: methods and preliminary findings‟, Audiology and Neuro-Otology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 259-68.

Eisenberg, LS, Kirk, KI, Martinez, AS, Ying, EA & Miyamoto, RT 2004 „Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users‟, Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 563-9.

El-Hakim, H, Abdolell, M, Mount, RJ, Papsin, BC & Harrison, RV 2002 „Influence of age at implantation and of residual hearing on speech outcome measures after cochlear implantation: binary partitioning analysis‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 5 II, pp. 102-108.

Ernst, MM 1997 „Case study: speech/language development of an auditory-verbal deaf child‟, Seminars in Hearing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 297-310.

Galvan, D 1999 „Differences in the use of American Sign Language morphology by deaf children: implications for parents and teachers‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 144, no. 4, pp. 320-324.

Gantz, BJ, Rubinstein, JT, Tyler, RS, Teagle, HF, Cohen, NL, Waltzman, SB, Miyamoto, RT & Kirk, KI 2000 „Long-term results of cochlear implants in

Page | 12

children with residual hearing‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 85, no. supplement, pp. 33-6. Geers, AE & Brenner, C 2004 „Educational intervention and outcomes of early cochlear implantation‟, International Congress Series, vol. 1273, pp. 405-8.

Govaerts, PJ, De Beukelaer, C, Daemers, K, De Ceulaer, G, Yperman, M, Somers, T, Schatteman, I & Offeciers, FE 2002 „Outcome of cochlear implantation at different ages from 0 to 6 years‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 885-90.

Hammes, DM, Novak, MA, Rotz, LA, Willis, M, Edmondson, DM & Thomas, JF 2002 „Early identification and cochlear implantation: critical factors for spoken language development‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 5II, pp. 74-78.

Harrison, RV, Panesar, J, El-Hakim, H, Abdolell, M, Mount, RJ & Papsin, B 2001 „The effects of age of cochlear implantation on speech perception outcomes in prelingually deaf children‟, Scandinavian Audiology, vol. 30, no. 53(S), pp. 73-8.

Hoekstra, CC, Snik, AFM, Van den Borne, S & Van den Broek, P 1999 „Auditory training in severely and profoundly hearing impaired toddlers: the development of auditory skills and verbal communication‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 201-4.

Illg, A, von der Haar-Heise, S, Goldring, JE, Lesinski-Schiedat, A, Battmer, RD & Lenarz, T 1999 „Speech perception results for children implanted with the CLARION cochlear implant at the Medical University of Hannover‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 177, no. supplement, pp. 93-98.

Janjua, F, Woll, B & Kyle, J 2002 „Effects of parental style of interaction on language development in very young severe and profound deaf children‟,

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 193-205.

Kirk, K & Davis, RAO 2004 „Participant attrition in longitudinal studies of cochlear implant outcomes in children‟, International Congress Series, vol. 1273, pp. 288-91.

Lee, SH, Huh, MJ, Jeung, HI & Lee, DH 2004 „Receptive language skills of profoundly hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol. 5, no. (S1), pp. 99-101.

Lesinski-Schiedat, A, Illg, A, Heermann, R, Bertram, B & Lenarz, T 2004 „Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: a comparative study‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 146-159.

Lin, CY, Yang, HM, Chen, YJ & Wu, JL 2004 „The effect of mental function on speech-perception performance in children with cochlear implants‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol. 5, no.(S1), pp. 132-134.

Page | 13

LÃhle, E, Frischmuth, S, Holm, M, Becker, L, Flamm, K, Laszig, R, Beck, C & Lehnhardt, E 1999 „Speech recognition, speech production and speech intelligibility in children with hearing aids versus implanted children‟,


Loundon, N, Busquet, D, Roger, G, Moatti, L & Garabedian, EN 2000 „Audiophonological results after cochlear implantation in 40 congenitally deaf patients: preliminary results‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 9-21.

Madden, C, Hilbert, L, Rutter, M, Greinwald, J & Choo, D 2002 „Pediatric cochlear implantation in auditory neuropathy‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 163-168.

Miyamoto, RT, Houston, DM & Bergeson, T 2005 „Cochlear implantation in deaf infants‟, Laryngoscope, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 1376-80.

Miyamoto, RT, Houston, DM, Kirk, KI, Perdew, AE & Svirsky, MA 2003 „Language development in deaf infants following cochlear implantation‟, Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 241-244.

Molina, M, Huarte, A, Cervera-Paz, FJ, Manrique, M & Garcia-Tapia, R 1999 „Development of speech in 2-year-old children with cochlear implant‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 177-9.

Novak, MA, Firszt, JB, Rotz, LA, Hammes, D, Reeder, R & Willis, M 2000 „Cochlear implants in infants and toddlers‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 185, no. supplement, pp. 46-9.

Remine, MD, Brown, PM & Cowan, RSC 2003 „Assessing children with profound hearing loss and severe language delay: getting a broader picture‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 73-84.

Robinshaw, HM 1995 „Early intervention for hearing impairment: differences in the timing of communicative and linguistic development‟, British Journal of Audiology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 315-334.

Robinshaw, HM 1996 „The pattern of development from non-communicative behaviour to language by hearing impaired and hearing infants‟, British Journal of Audiology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 177-198.

Robinshaw, HM 1996 „Acquisition of speech, pre- and post-cochlear implantation: longitudinal studies of a congenitally deaf infant‟, European Journal of Disorders of Communication, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 121-139.

Robinshaw, HM & Evans, R 1996 „Assessing the acquisition of the auditory, communicative and linguistic skills of a congenitally deaf infant pre- and post-cochlear implantation‟, Early Child Development and Care, vol. 117, pp. 77-98.

Page | 14

Schauwers, K, Gillis, S, Daemers, K, De Beukelaer, C, De Ceulaer, G, Yperman, M & Govaerts, PJ 2004 „Normal hearing and language development in a deaf-born child‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 924-929.

Schorr, EA, Fox, NA, van Wassenhove, V & Knudsen, EI 2005 „Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants‟, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 51, pp. 18748-50.

Sharma, A, Dorman, MF & Spahr, AJ 2002 „A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 532-9.

Staller, S, Parkinson, A, Arcaroli, J & Arndt, P 2002 „Pediatric outcomes with the nucleus 24 contour: North American clinical trial‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 189, no. supplement, pp. 56-61.

Tyler, R. S., Teagle, H. F., Kelsay, D. M., Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G. G., & Parkinson, A. J. (2000). Speech perception by prelingually deaf children after six years of Cochlear implant use: effects of age at implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 185, 82-84. Waltzman, SB, Cohen, NL & Lenarz, T 1998 „Cochlear implantation in children younger than 2 years old‟, American Journal of Otology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 158-162.

Wray, D, Flexer, C & Vaccaro, V 1997 „Classroom performance of children who are deaf or hard of hearing and who learned spoken communication through the auditory-verbal approach: an evaluation of treatment efficacy‟, Volta Review, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 107-19.

Zimmerman-Phillips, S, Robbins, AM & Osberger, MJ 2000 „Assessing cochlear implant benefit in very young children‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 185, no. supplement, pp. 42-3.

Duplicated studies

Cleary, M., Dillon, C., & Pisoni, D. B. (2002). Imitation of nonwords by deaf children after cochlear implantation: preliminary findings. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement, 189(-), 91-96. Eisenberg, LS, Martinez, AS, Sennaroglu, G & Osberger MJ 2000 „Establishing new criteria in selecting children for a cochlear implant: performance of "platinum" hearing aid users‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 185, no. supplement, pp. 30-3.

Geers, A., Brenner, C., Nicholas, J., Uchanski, R., Tye-Murray, N., & Tobey, E. (2002). Rehabilitation factors contributing to implant benefit in children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 127-130.

Page | 15

Petitto, L. A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox: how sign-speaking bilingual children help us to resolve it and teach us about the brain's mechanisms underlying all language acquisition. Learning Languages, 8(3), 5-18. Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tetreault, K., & Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28(2), 453-496. Powers, S. (1999). The educational attainments of deaf students in mainstream programs in England: examination results and influencing factors. American annals of the deaf, 144(3), 261-269. Robbins, A. M., M., S., & I., K. K. (1997). Children with implants can speak, but can they communicate? Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 117(3 (Pt 1)), 155-160. Tyler, RS, Fryauf-Bertschy, H, Gantz, BJ, Kelsay, DM & Woodworth, GG 1997 „Speech perception in prelingually implanted children after four years‟, Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 52, pp. 187-92.

Waltzman, S. B., Robbins, A. M., Green, J. E., & Cohen, N. L. (2003). Second oral language capabilities in children with cochlear implants. Otology and Neurotology, 24(5), 757-763.

Page | 16

Appendix Six

Excluded qualitative publications scoring less than 7 Evans, JF 1995 „Conversation at home: a case study of a young deaf child's communication experiences in a family in which all others can hear‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 324-332.

Preisler, G, Ahlstrom, M & Tvingstedt, AL 1997 „The development of communication and language in deaf preschool children with cochlear implants‟,


Page | 17

Appendix Seven

Critical appraisal scores for quantitative research studies

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross

-sectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Allum, J. H., Greisiger, R., Straubhaar, S., & Carpenter, M. G. (2000). Auditory perception and speech identification in children with cochlear implants tested with the EARS protocol. British Journal of Audiology, 34(5), 293-303.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 8

Anderson, I., Weichbold, V., D'Haese, P. S. C., Szuchnik, J., Quevedo, M. S., Martin, J., et al. (2004). Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two--what do the outcomes show us? International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68(4), 425-431.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 6

Page | 18

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Apuzzo, M. L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1995). Early identification of infants with significant hearing loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Seminars in Hearing, 16(2), 124-139.

Retrospective cohort

III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Archbold, S. M., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Tait, M., O'Donoghue, G. M., Lutman, M. E., & Gregory, S. (2000). Approach to communication, speech perception and intelligibility after paediatric cochlear implantation. British Journal of Audiology, 34(4), 257-264.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

Page | 19

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Archbold, S., Nikolopoulos, T. P., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Lutman, M. E. (1998). Educational placement of deaf children following cochlear implantation. British journal of audiology, 32(5), 295-300.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Archbold, S., O'Donoghue, G., & Nikolopoulos, T. (1998). Cochlear implants in children: an analysis of use over a three-year period. American Journal of Otology, 19(3), 328-331.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11

Barker, B. A., & Tomblin, J. B. (2004). Bimodal speech perception in infant hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 582-586.

Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes

IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8

Page | 20

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Bat-Chava, Y., Martin, D., & Kosciw, J. G. (2005). Longitudinal improvements in communication and socialization of deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids: evidence from parental reports. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 46(12), 1287-1296.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 7

Baumgartner, W. D., Pok, S. M., Egelierler, B., Franz, P., Gstoettner, W., & Hamzavi, J. (2002). The role of age in pediatric cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 62(3), 223-228.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8

Beadle, E. A. R., McKinley, D. J., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Brough, J., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Archbold, S. M. (2005). Long-term functional outcomes and academic-occupational status in implanted

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 9

Page | 21

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

children after 10 to 14 years of cochlear implant use. Otology and Neurotology, 26(6), 1152-1160.

Blamey, P. J., Sarant, J. Z., Paatsch, L. E., Barry, J. G., Bow, C. P., Wales, R. J., et al. (2001). Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 44(2), 264-285.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Blamey, P., Barry, J., Bow, C., Sarant, J., Paatsch, L., & Wales, R. (2001). The development of speech production following cochlear implantation. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics Vol 15(5) Jul-Aug 2001, 363-382.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8

Page | 22

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Bogaerde, B. v.d., & Baker, A. E. (2002). Are young deaf children bilingual? In G. Morgan & W. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 183-206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Case series with post-test outcomes

IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

Bollard PM, Chute PM, Popp A, Parisier SC: Specific language growth in young children using the CLARION cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology [NLM - MEDLINE] 1999; 177:119


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Boothroyd, A., & Boothroyd-Turner, D. (2002). Postimplantation audition and educational attainment in children with prelingually acquired profound deafness. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 79-84.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

Page | 23

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Bornstein, M. H., Selmi, A. M., Haynes, O. M., Painter, K. M., & Marx, E. S. (1999). Representational abilities and the hearing status of child/mother dyads. Child Development, 70(4), 833-852.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (in press). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 608-635.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1

1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Brackett, D., & Zara, C. V. (1998). Communication outcomes related to early implantation. American Journal of Otology, 19(4), 453-460.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Page | 24

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Burkholder, R. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Speech timing and working memory in profoundly deaf children after cochlear implantation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(1), 63-88.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1

1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Calderon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in deaf children's education programs as a predictor of child's language, early reading, and social-emotional development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(2), 140-155.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1

1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Calderon, R., & Low, S. (1998). Early social-emotional, language, and academic development in children with hearing loss. Families with and without fathers. American annals of the deaf, 143(3), 225-234.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Page | 25

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Calderon, R., & Naidu, S. (1998). Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 53-84.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Calmels, M. N., Saliba, I., Wanna, G., Cochard, N., Fillaux, J., Deguine, O., et al. (2004). Speech perception and speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68(3), 347-351.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6

Chin, S. B., Tsai, P. L., & Gao, S. (2003). Connected speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(4), 440-451.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 26

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2004). Children with cochlear implants: changing parent and deaf community perspectives. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 673-677.

Sample survey

N

Qualitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 9

Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Geers, A. E. (2001). Some measures of verbal and spatial working memory in eight- and nine-year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 22(5), 395-411.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2002). Working memory spans as predictors of spoken word recognition and receptive vocabulary in children with cochlear implants. Volta Review Vol 102(4) 2000, 259-280.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9

Page | 27

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Colletti, V., Carner, M., Miorelli, V., Guida, M., Colletti, L., & Fiorino, F. G. (2005). Cochlear implantation at under 12 months: Report on 10 patients. Laryngoscope, 115(3), 445-449.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 9

Connor, C. M. (2006). Examining the communication skills of a young cochlear implant pioneer. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 11(4), 449-460.


IV Mixed method

Repeated measures

1

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 8

Connor, C. M., & Zwolan, T. A. (2004). Examining multiple sources of influence on the reading comprehensive skills of children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 509-526.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Page | 28

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Connor, C. M., Craig, H. K., Raudenbush, S. W., Heavner, K., & Zwolan, T. A. (2006). The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation? Ear & Hearing, 27(6), 628-644.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

Damen, G. W., van den Oever-Goltstein, M. H., Langereis, M. C., Chute, P. M., & Mylanus, E. A. (2006). Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology [NLM - MEDLINE], 115(7), 542.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Page | 29

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Dettman, S. J., Fiket, H., Dowell, R. C., Charlton, M., Williams, S. S., Tomov, A. M., et al. (2004). Speech perception results for children using cochlear implants who have additional special needs. Volta Review, 104(4), 361-392.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Diller, G., Graser, P., & Schmalbrock, C. (2001). Early natural auditory-verbal education of children with profound hearing impairments in the Federal Republic of Germany: results of a 4 year study. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 60(3), 219-226.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6

Dillon, C. M., Burkholder, R. A., Cleary, M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Nonword repetition by children with cochlear implants: Accuracy ratings from normal-hearing listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1103-1116.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 30

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Dodd, B., McIntosh, B., & Woodhouse, L. (1998). Early lipreading ability and speech and language development of hearing-impaired pre-schoolers. Campbell, Ruth (Ed); Dodd, Barbara (Ed); Burnham, Denis (Ed), (1998). Hearing by eye II: Advances in the psychology of speechreading and auditory-visual speech. (pp. 229-242). xiv, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2006, 29-30 November 2006). Rate of progress in listening, language and speech development for children in an auditory-verbal program. Paper presented at the Qld Department of Health Healthy Hearing Symposium, Brisbane.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9

Page | 31

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (in press). Outcomes of an auditory-verbal program for children with hearing loss: a comparative study with a matched group of children with normal hearing. Volta Review.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 9

Dowell, R. C., Dettman, S. J., Blamey, P. J., Barker, E. J., & Clark, G. M. (2002). Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: Prediction of long-term outcomes. Cochlear Implants International, 3(1), 1-18.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Duncan, J. (1999). Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting. Volta Review, 101(4), 193-211.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10

Page | 32

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Easterbrooks, S. R., & O'Rourke, C. M. (2001). Gender differences in response to auditory-verbal intervention in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. American annals of the deaf, 146(4), 309-319.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Easterbrooks, S. R., O'Rourke, C. M., & Todd, T. W. (2000). Child and family factors associated with deaf children's success in Auditory-Verbal therapy. American Journal of Otology, 21(3), 341-344.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 9

Edwards, L. C., Frost, R., & Witham, F. (2006). Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: Implications for candidacy. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(9), 1593-1600.

Prospective cohort

III-2 Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7

Page | 33

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Eisenberg, L. S., Johnson, K. C., Martinez, A. S., Cokely, C. G., Tobey, E. A., Quittner, A. L., et al. (2006). Speech recognition at 1-year follow-up in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study: Methods and preliminary findings. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 11(4), 259-268.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Eisenberg, L. S., Kirk, K. I., Martinez, A. S., Ying, E. A., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2004). Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 563-569.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6

Page | 34

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

El-Hakim, H., Abdolell, M., Mount, R. J., Papsin, B. C., & Harrison, R. V. (2002). Influence of age at implantation and of residual hearing on speech outcome measures after cochlear implantation: Binary partitioning analysis. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 102-108.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 6

Ernst, M. M. (1997). Case study: speech/language development of an auditory-verbal deaf child. Seminars in Hearing.


IV

Mixed method

Repeated measures

1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6

Ertmer, D. J., & Mellon, J. A. (2001). Beginning to talk at 20 months: early vocal development in a young cochlear implant recipient. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 44(1), 192-206.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 8

Page | 35

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Ertmer, D. J., Leonard, J. S., & Pachuilo, M. L. (2002). Communication intervention for children with cochlear implants: Two case studies. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol 33(3) Jul 2002, 205-217.


IV Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Ertmer, D. J., Strong, L. M., & Sadagopan, N. (2003). Beginning to communicate after cochlear implantation: oral language development in a young child. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 46(2), 328-340.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 8

Ertmer, D., J. . (2001). Emergence of a vowel system in a young cochlear implant recipient. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(4), 803.


IV Qualitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 8

Ertmer, D., J., Young, N., Grohne, K., Mellon, J., A. , Johnson, C., Corbett, K., et al. (2002). Vocal


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 8

Page | 36

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

development in young children with Cochlear implants: profiles and implications for intervention. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 33(3), 184-195.

Fabbretti, D., Volterra, V., & Pontecorvo, C. (1998). Written language abilities in deaf Italians. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3(3), 231-244.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Flipsen Jr, P., & Colvard, L. G. (2006). Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(2), 93-108.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Page | 37

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Fortnum, H. M., Stacey, P. C., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). An exploration of demographic bias in a questionnaire survey of hearing-impaired children: Implications for comparisons of children with and without cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(12), 2043-2054.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 13

Fryauf-Bertschy, H., Tyler, R. S., Kelsay, D. M., Gantz, B. J., & et al. (1997). Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: The influences of age at implant and length of device use. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol 40(1) Feb 1997, 183-199.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8

Galvan, D. (1999). Differences in the use of American Sign Language morphology by deaf children: implications for parents and teachers. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(4), 320-324.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Page | 38

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Gantz, B. J., Rubinstein, J. T., Tyler, R. S., Teagle, H. F., Cohen, N. L., Waltzman, S. B., et al. (2000). Long-term results of cochlear implants in children with residual hearing. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 185, 33-36.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 59S-68S.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Geers, A. E. (2004). Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation.[see comment]. Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 634-638.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 39

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Geers, A. E., & Brenner, C. (2003). Background and educational characteristics of prelingually deaf children implanted by five years of age. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 2S-14S.

Prospective cohort

III-2 Quantitative Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Geers, A. E., & Brenner, C. (2004). Educational intervention and outcomes of early cochlear implantation International Congress Series, 1273(November), 405-408.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5

Geers, A., Brenner, C., & Davidson, L. (2003). Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 24S-35S.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 40

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Geers, A., Spehar, B., & Sedey, A. (2002). Use of speech by children from total communication programs who wear cochlear implants. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 50-58.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Geers, A.E., Nicholas,J.G., & Sedey, A.L. (2003). Language Skills of Children with Early Cochlear Implantation. Ear & Hearing 2003, 24, 46S–58S


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Gordon, K. A., Twitchell, K. A., Papsin, B. C., & Harrison, R. V. (2001). Effect of residual hearing prior to cochlear implantation on speech perception in children. Journal of Otolaryngology, 30(4), 216-223.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 41

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Govaerts, P. J., De Beukelaer, C., Daemers, K., De Ceulaer, G., Yperman, M., Somers, T., et al. (2002). Outcome of cochlear implantation at different ages from 0 to 6 years. Otology & Neurotology, 23(6), 885-890.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

Hammes, D. M., Novak, M. A., Rotz, L. A., Willis, M., Edmondson, D. M., & Thomas, J. F. (2002). Early identification and cochlear implantation: critical factors for spoken language development. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 74-78.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5

Harrison, R. V., Gordon, K. A., & Mount, R. J. (2005). Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(3), 252-261.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Page | 42

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Harrison, R. V., Panesar, J., El-Hakim, H., Abdolell, M., Mount, R. J., & Papsin, B. (2001). The effects of age of cochlear implantation on speech perception outcomes in prelingually deaf children. Scandinavian Audiology Vol 30(Suppl53) 2001, 73-78.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 6

Hassanzadeh, S., Farhadi, M., Daneshi, A., & Emamdjomeh, H. (2002). The effects of age on auditory speech perception development in cochlear-implanted prelingually deaf children. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 126(5), 524-527.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Hehar, S. S., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Gibbin, K. P., & O'Donoghue, G. M. (2002). Surgery and functional outcomes in deaf children receiving cochlear implants before age 2 years. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 128(1), 11-14.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Page | 43

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Hintermair, M. (2006). Parental resources, parental stress, and socioemotional development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 11(4), 493-513.

Prospective cohort

III-2 Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9

Hodges, A. V., Dolan Ash, M., Balkany, T. J., Schloffman, J. J., & Butts, S. L. (1999). Speech perception results in children with cochlear implants: contributing factors. Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 121(1), 31-34.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative Cross-sectional

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7

Hoekstra, C. C., Snik, A. F. M., Van den Borne, S., & Van den Broek, P. (1999). Auditory training in severely and profoundly hearing impaired toddlers: the development of auditory skills and verbal communication. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 47(2), 201-204.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 6

Page | 44

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Holt, R. F., & Kirk, K. I. (2005). Speech and language development in cognitively delayed children with cochlear implants. Ear & Hearing, 26(2), 132-148.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 8

Horn DL, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT 2006: Divergence of fine and gross motor skills in prelingually deaf children: Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope; 116(8):1500-1506.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Horn, D. L., Davis, R. A. O., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2005). Behavioral inhibition and clinical outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Laryngoscope, 115(4), 595-600.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Houston, D. M., Carter, A. K., Pisoni, D. B., Kirk, K. l., & Ying, E. A. (2005). Word learning in children following cochlear implantation. Volta Review Vol 105(1) Spr 2005, 41-72.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 8

Page | 45

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Houston, D. M., Pisoni, D. B., Kirk, K. I., Ying, E. A., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2003). Speech perception skills of deaf infants following cochlear implantation: A first report. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 67(5), 479-495.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Houston, D. M., Ying, E. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2001). Development of pre- word-learning skills in infants with cochlear implants. Volta Review Vol 103(4) 2001, 303-326.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Illg, A., von der Haar-Heise, S., Goldring, J. E., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Battmer, R. D., & Lenarz, T. (1999). Speech perception results for children implanted with the CLARION cochlear implant at the Medical University of Hannover. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement, 177(-), 93-98.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4

Page | 46

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

James, D., Rajput, K., Brown, T., Sirimanna, T., Brinton, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Phonological awareness in deaf children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1511-1528.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Janjua, F., Woll, B., & Kyle, J. (2002). Effects of parental style of interaction on language development in very young severe and profound deaf children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 64(3), 193-205.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

Kane, M. O., Schopmeyer, B., Mellon, N. K., Wang, N. Y., & Niparko, J. K. (2004). Prelinguistic communication and subsequent language acquisition in children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 130(5), 619-623.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 47

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., Petrou, S., et al. (2006). Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(20), 2131-2141.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

Kiese-Himmel, C., & Reeh, M. (2006). Assessment of expressive vocabulary outcomes in hearing-impaired children with hearing aids: do bilaterally hearing-impaired children catch up? Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 120(8), 619-626.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Kiese-Himmel, C., Schroff, J., & Kruse, E. (1997). Identification and diagnostic evaluation of hearing impairments in early childhood in German-speaking infants. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 254(3), 133-139.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 48

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Kirk, K. I., & Davis, R. A. O. (2004). Participant attrition in longitudinal studies of cochlear implant outcomes in children International Congress Series, 1273(November), 288-291.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5

Kirk, K. I., Miyamoto, R. T., Ying, E. A., Perdew, A. E., & Zuganelis, H. (2000). Cochlear implantation in young children: effects of age at implantation and communication mode. Volta Review, 102(4), 127-144.


III-3 Quantitative Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 8

Kishon-Rabin, L., Taitelbaum-Swead, R., Ezrati-Vinacour, R., & Hildesheimer, M. (2005). Prelexical vocalization in normal hearing and hearing-impaired infants before and after cochlear implantation and its relation to early auditory skills. Ear and Hearing, 26(4 SUPPL.), 17S-29S.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 49

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Lederberg, A. R., & Everhart, V. S. (1998). Communication between deaf children and their hearing mothers: the role of language, gesture, and vocalization. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 887-899.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Lederberg, A. R., & Everhart, V. S. (2000). Conversations between deaf children and their hearing mothers: pragmatic and dialogic characteristics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 303-322.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Lee, S. H., Huh, M. J., Jeung, H. I., & Lee, D. H. (2004). Receptive language skills of profoundly hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 5(SUPPL. 1), 99-101.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5

Page | 50

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Illg, A., Heermann, R., Bertram, B., & Lenarz, T. (2004). Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: A comparative study. Cochlear Implants International, 5(4), 146-159.


III-3

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

Leybaert, J., & Lechat, J. (2001). Variability in deaf children's spelling: The effect of language experience. Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 93(3) Sep 2001, 554-562.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3(2), 80-134.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 51

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Lin, C. Y., Yang, H. M., Chen, Y. J., & Wu, J. L. (2004). The effect of mental function on speech-perception performance in children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 5(SUPPL. 1), 132-134.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4

Löhle, E., Frischmuth, S., Holm, M., Becker, L., Flamm, K., Laszig, R., et al. (1999). Speech recognition, speech production and speech intelligibility in children with hearing aids versus implanted children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 47(2), 165-169.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Loots, G., Devise, I., & Jacquet, W. (2005). The impact of visual communication on the intersubjective development of early parent-child interaction with 18- to 24-month-old deaf toddlers. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 10(4), 357-375.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 52

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Loundon, N., Busquet, D., Roger, G., Moatti, L., & Garabedian, E. N. (2000). Audiophonological results after cochlear implantation in 40 congenitally deaf patients: Preliminary results. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 56(1), 9-21.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5

Madden, C., Hilbert, L., Rutter, M., Greinwald, J., & Choo, D. (2002). Pediatric cochlear implantation in auditory neuropathy. Otology and Neurotology, 23(2), 163-168.


IV

Quantitative

Repeated measures

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5

Manrique, M., Cervera-Paz, F. J., Huarte, A., & Molina, M. (2004). Prospective long-term auditory results of cochlear implantation in prelinguistically deafened children: the importance of early implantation. Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum, -(552), 55-63.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Repeated measures

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 7

Marino, E., Furlonger, B. E., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C.

Prospective cohort

III-2

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 53

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

(2003). The relationship between parent coping strategies, social-emotional development and language functioning of hearing-impaired children. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 9, 11-18.

Martineau, G., Lamarche, P. A., Marcoux, S., & Bernard, P.-M. (2001). The effect of early intervention on academic achievement of hearing-impaired children. Early Education and Development Vol 12(2) Apr 2001, 275-289.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Marttila, T. I., & Karikoski, J. O. (2006). Hearing aid use in Finnish children--impact of hearing loss variables and detection delay. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(3), 475-480.


III-3

Quantitative

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Page | 54

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Mayberry, R. I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain & Language, 87(3), 369-384.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Mayne, A. M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Sedey, A. L. (1998). Receptive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 29-52.



1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

McCaffrey, H. A., Davis, B. L., MacNeilage, P. F., & von Hapsburg, D. (1999). Multichannel cochlear implantation and the organization of early speech. Volta Review, 101(1), 5-29.


IV Quantitative Repeated measures

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Page | 55

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Meyer, T. A., Svirsky, M. A., Kirk, K. I., & Miyamoto, R. T. (1998). Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: Effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 846-858.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Miyamoto, R. T., Houston, D. M., & Bergeson, T. (2005). Cochlear implantation in deaf infants. Laryngoscope, 115(8), 1376-1380.

Prospective cohort


0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5

Miyamoto, R. T., Houston, D. M., Kirk, K. I., Perdew, A. E., & Svirsky, M. A. (2003). Language development in deaf infants following cochlear implantation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 123(2), 241-244.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5

Page | 56

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Miyamoto, R. T., Kirk, K. I., Svirsky, M. A., & Sehgal, S. T. (1999). Communication skills in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Acta Oto-Laryngologica Vo1 119(2) Mar 1999, 219-224.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 8

Moeller, M. P. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), E43.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Moeller, M. P., & Schick, B. (2006). Relations between maternal input and theory of mind understanding in deaf children. Child Development, 77(3), 751-766.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Moeller, M. P., Donaghy, K. F., Beauchaine, K. L., Lewis, D. E., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (1996). Longitudinal study of FM system use in nonacademic settings: Effects on language development. Ear and Hearing, 17(1), 28-41.

Pseudorandomised controlled

trial


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 57

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Molina, M., Huarte, A., Cervera-Paz, F. J., Manrique, M., & Garcia-Tapia, R. (1999). Development of speech in 2-year-old children with cochlear implant. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 47(2), 177-179.



1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

Musselman, C., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (1996). The development of spoken language in deaf children: Explaining the unexplained variance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Vol 1(2) Spr 1996, 108-121.



1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (1997). Communication of oral deaf and normally hearing children at 36 months of age. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research Vol 40(6) Dec 1997, 1314-1327.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10

Page | 58

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2003a). Hearing status, language modality, and young children's communicative and linguistic behavior. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(4), 422-437.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2003b). Personal, social, and family adjustment in school-aged children with a cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 69S-81S.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2006). Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of age. Ear and Hearing, 27(3), 286-298.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Nikolopoulos, T. P., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Archbold, S. (1999). Age at implantation: Its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope, 109(4), 595-599.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Page | 59

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Novak, M. A., Firszt, J. B., Rotz, L. A., Hammes, D., Reeder, R., & Willis, M. (2000). Cochlear implants in infants and toddlers. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 185, 46-49.



1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Obenchain, P., Menn, L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Can speech development at 36 months in children with hearing loss be predicted from information available in the second year of life? Volta Review, 100(5), 149-180.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

O'Donoghue, G. M., Nikolopoulos, T. P., & Archbold, S. M. (2000). Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation. Lancet, 356(9228), 466-468.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 8

Page | 60

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Oh, S.-H., Kim, C.-S., Kang, E. J., Lee, D. S., Lee, H. J., Chang, S. O., et al. (2003). Speech perception after cochlear implantation over a 4-year time period. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 123(2), 148-153.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 8

Osberger, M. J., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Koch, D. B. (2002). Cochlear implant candidacy and performance trends in children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 62-65.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165-189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 10

Page | 61

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Peng, S. C., Spencer, L. J., & Tomblin, J. B. (2004). Speech intelligibility of pediatric cochlear implant recipients with 7 years of device experience. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 47(6), 1227-1236.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Peng, S. C., Weiss, A. L., Cheung, H., & Lin, Y. S. (2004). Consonant production and language skills in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 592-597.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Pipp-Siegel, S., Sedey, A. L., VanLeeuwen, A. M., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Mastery motivation and expressive language in young children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 133-145.



1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Page | 62

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Pipp-Siegel, S; Sedey, A.L., Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2002). Predictors of Parental Stress in Mothers of Young Children with Hearing Loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 1-17.



1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Pisoni, D. B., & Cleary, M. (2003). Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 106S-120S.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Pisoni, D. B., Cleary, M., Geers, A. E., & Tobey, E. A. (1999). Individual differences in effectiveness of cochlear implants in children who are prelingually deaf: new process measures of performance. Volta Review, 101(3), 111-164.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Page | 63

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Pittman, A. L., Lewis, D. E., Hoover, B. M., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (2005). Rapid word-learning in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children: Effects of age, receptive vocabulary, and high-frequency amplification. Ear and Hearing, 26(6), 619-629.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Pizzuto, E., Ardito, B., Caselli, M. C., & Volterra, V. (2001). Cognition and language in Italian deaf preschoolers of deaf and hearing families. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Context, cognition and deafness (pp. 49-70). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

Powers, S. (2003). Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream secondary school deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 57-78.

Sample survey N Quantitative Repeated measures

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Page | 64

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Pressman, L. J., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Deas, A. (1999). Maternal sensitivity predicts language gain in preschool children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Vol 4(4) Fal 1999, 294-304.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11

Pressman, L. J., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Kubicek, L., & Emde, R. N. (1999). A comparison of the links between emotional availability and language gain in young children with and without hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 251-277.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Remine, M. D., Brown, P. M., & Cowan, R. S. C. (2003). Assessing children with profound hearing loss and severe language delay: getting a broader picture. Cochlear Implants International, 4(2), 73-84.



1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5

Page | 65

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Remine, M., Brown, M., Care, E., & Rickards, F. (2003). Cognitive factors associated with variance in language performance in students with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 9, 33-38.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Richmond-Welty, E. D., & Siple, P. (1999). Differentiating the use of gaze in bilingual - bimodal language acquisition: A comparison of two sets of twins with deaf parents. Journal of Child Language, 26(2), 321-338.



1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

Robbins, A. M., Green, J. E., & Waltzman, S. B. (2004). Bilingual oral language proficiency in children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 644-647.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 7

Page | 66

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Robbins, A. M., Koch, D. B., Osberger, M. J., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2004). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on auditory skill development in infants and toddlers. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 570-574.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 9

Robinshaw, H. M. (1995). Early intervention for hearing impairment: differences in the timing of communicative and linguistic development. British Journal of Audiology, 29(6), 315-334.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Robinshaw, H. M. (1996). Acquisition of speech, pre- and post-cochlear implantation: Longitudinal studies of a congenitally deaf infant. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31(2), 121-139.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Page | 67

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Robinshaw, H. M. (1996). The pattern of development from non-communicative behaviour to language by hearing impaired and hearing infants. British Journal of Audiology, 30(3), 177-198.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Robinshaw, H. M., & Evans, R. (1996). Assessing the acquisition of the auditory, communicative and linguistic skills of a congenitally deaf infant pre- and post-cochlear implantation. Early Child Development and Care Vol 117 Feb 1996, 77-98.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Sainz, M., Skarzynski, H., Allum, J. H. J., Helms, J., Rivas, A., Martin, J., et al. (2003). Assessment of auditory skills in 140 cochlear implant children using the EARS protocol. Orl; Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & its Related Specialties, 65(2), 91-96.



1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 9

Page | 68

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Sarant, J. Z., Blamey, P. J., Dowell, R. C., Clark, G. M., & Gibson, W. P. R. (2001). Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 22(1), 18-28.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Schauwers, K., Gillis, S., Daemers, K., De Beukelaer, C., & Govaerts, P. J. (2004). Cochlear implantation between 5 and 20 months of age: the onset of babbling and the audiologic outcome. Otology & Neurotology, 25(3), 263-270.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

Schauwers, K., Gillis, S., Daemers, K., De Beukelaer, C., De Ceulaer, G., Yperman, M., et al. (2004). Normal hearing and language development in a deaf-born child. Otology and Neurotology, 25(6), 924-929.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6

Page | 69

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Schlumberger, E., Narbona, J., & Manrique, M. (2004). Non-verbal development of children with deafness with and without cochlear implants. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 46(9), 599-606.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Schorr, E. A., Fox, N. A., van Wassenhove, V., & Knudsen, E. I. (2005). Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(51), 18748-18750.

Prospective cohort


0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6

Seung, H., Holmes, A., & Colburn, M. (2005). Twin language development: a case study of a twin with a cochlear implant and a twin with typical hearing. Volta Review, 105(2), 175-188.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 70

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Sharma, A., Dorman, M. F., & Spahr, A. J. (2002). A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear and Hearing, 23(6), 532-539.



1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6

Snyder, L. S., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Specific play behaviors and the development of communication in children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(3), 165-85.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Spencer, L. J., Gantz, B. J., & Knutson, J. F. (2004). Outcomes and achievement of students who grew up with access to cochlear implants. Laryngoscope, 114(9 I), 1576-1581.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Page | 71

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Spencer, P. E. (2004). Individual differences in language performance after cochlear implantation at one to three years of age: child, family, and linguistic factors. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 9(4), 395-412.

Prospective cohort

III-2 Mixed method

Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Spencer, P. E., & Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1996). Play, language, and maternal responsiveness: a longitudinal study of deaf and hearing infants. Child Development, 67(6).

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8

Stacey, P. C., H. M. Fortnum, et al. (2006). "Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: Auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation." Ear and hearing. 27(2): 161-186.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12

Page | 72

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Staller, S., Parkinson, A., Arcaroli, J., & Arndt, P. (2002). Pediatric outcomes with the nucleus 24 contour: North American clinical trial. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 189, 56-61.



1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

Stallings, L. M., Ller K, Chin SB, Gao S (2002): Parent Word Familiarity and the Language Development of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users. The Volta Review 102(4). 237-258.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Svirsky, M. A., Teoh, S. W., & Neuburger, H. (2004). Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 9(4), 224-233.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 7

Page | 73

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Szagun, G. (2000). The acquisition of grammatical and lexical structures in children with cochlear implants: a developmental psycholinguistic approach. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 5(1), 39-47.



1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Szagun, G. (2001). Language acquisition in young German-speaking children with cochlear implants: individual differences and implications for conceptions of a 'sensitive phase'. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 6(5), 288-297.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

Szagun, G. (2004). Learning by ear: on the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 1-20.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 7

Page | 74

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Tobey, E. A., Geers, A. E., Brenner, C., Altuna, D., & Gabbert, G. (2003). Factors associated with development of speech production skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 36S-45S.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Tomblin, J. B., Barker, B. A., Spencer, L. J., Zhang, X., & Gantz, B. J. (2005). The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(4), 853-867.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8

Truy, E., Lina-Granade, G., Jonas, A. M., Martinon, G., Maison, S., Girard, J., et al. (1998). Comprehension of language in congenitally deaf children with and without cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 75

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

45(1), 83-89.

Tye-Murray, N., Spencer, L., & Woodworth, G. G. (1995). Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38(2), 327-337.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 10

Tyler, R. S., Teagle, H. F., Kelsay, D. M., Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G. G., & Parkinson, A. J. (2000). Speech perception by prelingually deaf children after six years of Cochlear implant use: effects of age at implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 185, 82-84.



1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Page | 76

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Uhlen, I., Bergmann, B., Hägg, Å., & Eriksson, C. (2006). Bilingualism with respect to the early simultaneous acquisition of spoken and signed language in children with a cochlear implant. Paper presented at the 19th Congress of the Nordisk Audiologisk Selskap (Scandinavian Audiological Society), Stavanger, Norway, 28-31 May. .

Prospective cohort


1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., et al. (1998). Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44(1), 15-22.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 8

Page | 77

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

von Hapsburg, D., & Davis, B. L. (2006). Auditory sensitivity and the prelinguistic vocalizations of early-amplified infants. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 49(4), 809-822.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Wake, M., Hughes, E. K., Poulakis, Z., Collins, C., & Rickards, F. W. (2004). Outcomes of children with mild-profound congenital hearing loss at 7 to 8 years: a population study. Ear and Hearing, 25(1), 1-8.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Wake, M., Poulakis, Z., Hughes, E. K., Carey-Sargeant, C., & Rickards, F. W. (2005). Hearing impairment: A population study of age at diagnosis, severity, and language outcomes at 7-8 years. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(3), 238-244.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 78

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Wallace, V., Menn, L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Is babble the gateway to speech for all children? A longitudinal study of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 121-148.



1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Wallis, D., Musselman, C., & MacKay, S. (2004). Hearing mothers and their deaf children: the relationship between early, ongoing mode match and subsequent mental health functioning in adolescence. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 9(1), 2-14.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Waltzman, S. B., & Roland Jr, J. T. (2005). Cochlear implantation in children younger than 12 months. Pediatrics, 116(4), e487-493.



1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

Page | 79

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Waltzman, S. B., Cohen, N. L., & Lenarz, T. (1998). Cochlear implantation in children younger than 2 years old. American Journal of Otology, 19(2), 158-162.



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

Waltzman, S. B., Cohen, N. L., Green, J., & Roland Jr, J. T. (2002). Long-term effects of cochlear implants in children. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 126(5), 505-511.



1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 8

Want, S. C., & Gattis, M. (2005). Are "late-signing" deaf children "mindblind"? Understanding goal directedness in imitation. Cognitive Development, 20(2), 159-172.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8

Warner-Czyz, A. D., Davis, B. L., & Morrison, H. M. (2005). Production accuracy in a young cochlear implant recipient. Volta Review, 105(2), 151-173.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 80

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Watkins, S., Pittman, P., & Walden, B. (1998). The Deaf Mentor Experimental Project for young children who are deaf and their families. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 29-34.

Prospective cohort


1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7

Watson, L. M., Archbold, S. M., & Nikolopoulos, T. P. (2006) Children's communication mode five years after cochlear implantation: changes over time according to age at implant, Cochlear Implants International, 7(2), 77-91.



1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Willstedt-Svensson, U., Lofqvist, A., Almqvist, B., & Sahlen, B. (2004). Is age at implant the only factor that counts? The influence of working memory on lexical and grammatical development in children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 43(9), 506-515.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Page | 81

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Wray, D., Flexer, C., & Vaccaro, V. (1997). Classroom performance of children who are deaf or hard of hearing and who learned spoken communication through the auditory-verbal approach: an evaluation of treatment efficacy. Volta Review, 99(2), 107-119.

Prospective cohort

N Quantitative Cross-sectional

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5

Wright, M., Purcell, A., & Reed, V. A. (2002). Cochlear implants and infants: Expectations and outcomes. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 131-137.



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 8

Wu, C. D., & Brown, P. M. (2004). Parents' and teachers' expectations of auditory-verbal therapy. Volta Review, 104(1), 5-20.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10

Page | 82

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Wu, J. L., Lin, C. Y., Yang, H. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2006). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on open-set word recognition in Mandarin speaking deaf children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(2), 207-211.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

Yoshinaga-Itano, C and Sedey, A. (1999). Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Interrelationships with Language and Hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 181-211.

Prospective cohort


1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2005). Early identification, communication modality, and the development of speech and spoken language skills: patterns and considerations. In P. E. Spencer & M. Marschark (Eds.), Advances in the spoken language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children (pp. 298-327). New York: Oxford University



1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 8

Page | 83

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Press.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998b). Identification of hearing loss after age 18 months is not early enough. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(5), 380-387.



1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998a). The development of deaf and hard of hearing children identified early through the high-risk registry. American annals of the deaf, 143(5), 416-424.



1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Page | 84

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Coulter, D., & Thomson, V. (2001). Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs. Seminars in Neonatology, 6(6), 521-529.



1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Coulter, D. K., & Mehl, A. L. (1998). Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 102(5), 1161-1171.



1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11

Young, G. A., & Killen, D. H. (2002). Receptive and expressive language skills of children with five years of experience using a cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 111(9), 802-810.


IV Quantitative Cross-sectional

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7

Page | 85

Reference S

tud

y d

esig

n

NH

MR

C le

vel o

f evid

en

ce

T

yp

e o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

C

ross-s

ectio

na

l or re

pe

ate

d m

easu

res

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re

Sam

ple

: de

tail

Sam

ple

: rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Ou

tco

mes

Inte

rven

tion

Co

-inte

rven

tion

s

Resu

lts: m

eth

od

s

Resu

lts: s

tatis

tical s

ign

ifican

ce

Po

wer

Co

nfo

un

din

g v

aria

ble

s id

en

tified

Co

nfo

un

din

g d

ealt w

ith

Attritio

n (d

rop

-ou

ts)

Co

nc

lus

ion

s

To

tal

Zimmerman-Phillips, S., Robbins, A. M., & Osberger, M. J. (2000). Assessing cochlear implant benefit in very young children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology - Supplement, 185, 42-43.



1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Zwolan, T. A., Ashbaugh, C. M., Alarfaj, A., Kileny, P. R., Arts, H. A., El-Kashlan, H. K., et al. (2004). Pediatric cochlear implant patient performance as a function of age at implantation. Otology & Neurotology, 25(2), 112-120. NOTE: PRINTED COPY ONLY



1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9

Zwolan, T. A., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., Ashbaugh, C. J., Hieber, S. J., Kileny, P. R., & Telian, S. A. (1997). Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills. Ear & Hearing, 18(3), 240-251.



1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9

Page | 86

Appendix Eight

Critical appraisal scores for qualitative research studies

Reference

Ty

pe o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

Researc

h m

eth

od

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re a

nd

the

ore

tical b

ackg

rou

nd

D

ata

co

llectio

n m

eth

od

s

Sam

ple

: sele

ctio

n

Sam

plin

g u

ntil re

du

nd

an

cy

Eth

ics a

nd

info

rmed

co

ns

en

t

Data

co

llectio

n d

eta

il

Pro

ced

ura

l rigo

ur

Co

din

g o

f da

ta

Tru

stw

orth

ine

ss o

f find

ing

s

Prim

ary

evid

en

ce o

f ou

tco

mes

Deta

il of fin

din

gs

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: a

pp

rop

riate

ne

ss

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

searc

h/th

eo

ry c

on

text

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

levan

ce to

oth

er s

ettin

gs

To

tal

Evans, J. F. (1995). Conversation at home: a case study of a young deaf child's communication experiences in a family in which all others can hear. American Annals of the Deaf, 140(4), 324-332.

Qualitative

Other

1

1

Multiple data sources

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 5

Magnuson M: Infants with congenital deafness: on the importance of early sign language acquisition. American annals of the deaf 2000; 145(1):6-14.

Qualitative

Other

1 1 Multiple data sources

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 7

Page | 87

Reference

Ty

pe o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

Researc

h m

eth

od

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re a

nd

the

ore

tical b

ackg

rou

nd

D

ata

co

llectio

n m

eth

od

s

Sam

ple

: sele

ctio

n

Sam

plin

g u

ntil re

du

nd

an

cy

Eth

ics a

nd

info

rmed

co

ns

en

t

Data

co

llectio

n d

eta

il

Pro

ced

ura

l rigo

ur

Co

din

g o

f da

ta

Tru

stw

orth

ine

ss o

f find

ing

s

Prim

ary

evid

en

ce o

f ou

tco

mes

Deta

il of fin

din

gs

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: a

pp

rop

riate

ne

ss

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

searc

h/th

eo

ry c

on

text

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

levan

ce to

oth

er s

ettin

gs

To

tal

Preisler, G. M., & Ahlstrom, M. (1997). Sign language for hard of hearing children - a hindrance or a benefit for their development? European Journal of Psychology of Education Vol 12(4) Dec 1997, 465-477.

Qualitative

Exploratory 1 0 Participant observation

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Preisler, G., Ahlstrom, M., & Tvingstedt, A. L. (1997). The development of communication and language in deaf preschool children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 41(3), 263-272.

Qualitative

Exploratory 1 1 Interviews 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6

Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlstrom, M. (2002). A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants. Child: Care, Health and Development, 28(5), 403-418.

Qualitative

Exploratory 1 1 Multiple data sources

1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10

Page | 88

Reference

Ty

pe o

f da

ta a

na

lysis

Researc

h m

eth

od

Stu

dy

pu

rpo

se

Lite

ratu

re a

nd

the

ore

tical b

ackg

rou

nd

D

ata

co

llectio

n m

eth

od

s

Sam

ple

: sele

ctio

n

Sam

plin

g u

ntil re

du

nd

an

cy

Eth

ics a

nd

info

rmed

co

ns

en

t

Data

co

llectio

n d

eta

il

Pro

ced

ura

l rigo

ur

Co

din

g o

f da

ta

Tru

stw

orth

ine

ss o

f find

ing

s

Prim

ary

evid

en

ce o

f ou

tco

mes

Deta

il of fin

din

gs

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: a

pp

rop

riate

ne

ss

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

searc

h/th

eo

ry c

on

text

Co

nc

lus

ion

s: re

levan

ce to

oth

er s

ettin

gs

To

tal

Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlstrom, M. (2005). Interviews with deaf children about their experiences using cochlear implants. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 260-267.

Qualitative

Exploratory 1 1 Interviews 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Page | 89

Appendix Nine

Critical appraisal scores for systematic reviews

Joanna Briggs Institute

Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Tool

Author: Helfand et al 2001 and Thompson et (Combined)

Yes

No

Unclear 1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? Y

2. Was the search strategy appropriate? Y

3. Were the sources of studies adequate? Y

4. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? Y 5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?

N

6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?

Y

7. Were there methods used to minimise error in data extraction? Y 8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? Y

9. Were the recommendations supported by the reported data? Y 10. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate? Y Score – 9/10

Page | 90

Appendix Ten

Content experts Content expert Response to date Sue Archbold Positive comments received indicating validation of the

identified literature Marc Marschark Positive comments received indicating validation of the

identified literature Johanna Grant Nicholas

Positive comments received indicating validation of the identified literature

Christine Yoshinaga-Itano

Positive comments received indicating validation of the identified literature

Page | 91

Appendix Eleven

All included publications with information about their study design, sample size, participants, intervention/focus, dependent variables/outcomes, independent

variables and measures. Reference: Allum, J. H., Greisiger, R., Straubhaar, S., & Carpenter, M. G. (2000). Auditory perception and speech identification in children with cochlear implants tested with the EARS protocol. British Journal of Audiology, 34(5), 293-303. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 2 years post-implantation Sample size: 71 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into three groups: those above and those below the age of 7 years at the time of implantation, and children implanted at <3 years and deafened by meningitis Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcome of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Cause of hearing loss Implant characteristics: implant model Measures: LiP, MAIS, MTP

Page | 92

Reference: Andrews, J. F., Ferguson, C., Roberts, S., & Hodges, P. (1997). What's up, Billy Jo? Deaf children and bilingual-bicultural instruction in east-central Texas. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(1), 16-25. Study design: Quantitative Case series with post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 2 years Sample size: 7 Participants: Children with hearing loss; aged 4–7 years at commencement of study Intervention/focus: Sign language Bilingual-bicultural programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Social-emotional development Cognitive development Receptive sign language: vocabulary Expressive language Academic achievement Independent variables: Measures: BBCS, M-K, TAC, CPVT, GAEL-S, SAT WJ

Page | 93

Reference: Apuzzo, M. L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1995). Early identification of infants with significant hearing loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Seminars in Hearing, 16(2), 124-139. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 69 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into 4 groups according to age at identification of hearing loss: birth – 2 months, 3–12 months, 13–24 months, 25+ months; age at testing = 25–60 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Motor development Social-emotional development Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Measures: Minnesota CDI

Page | 94

Reference: Archbold, S. M., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Tait, M., O'Donoghue, G. M., Lutman, M. E., & Gregory, S. (2000). Approach to communication, speech perception and intelligibility after paediatric cochlear implantation. British Journal of Audiology, 34(4), 257-264 Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 5 years Sample size: 46 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 53 months (30–82 months) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Speech production: intelligibility Independent variables: Communication mode (child‟s preferred or usual): signed (includes use of spoken English with sign support) or oral (spoken language) Measures: IOWA Matrix Closed Set Sentence Test, CAP, SIR, CDT

Page | 95

Reference: Archbold, S., Nikolopoulos, T. P., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Lutman, M. E. (1998). Educational placement of deaf children following cochlear implantation. British Journal of Audiology, 32(5), 295-300 Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures: pre-implantation and two years post-implantation Sample size: 48 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 65.8 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcome of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Educational placement Independent variables: Age at implantation Duration of hearing loss prior to intervention Measures: Educational placement: pre-school, school for the deaf, unit or resource base within mainstream school or full-time mainstream provision

Page | 96

Reference: Archbold, S., O'Donoghue, G., & Nikolopoulos, T. (1998). Cochlear implants in children: an analysis of use over a three-year period. American Journal of Otology, 19(3), 328-331 Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 3 years post-implantation Sample size: 85 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 63.6 months (21–203) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Cochlear implant use Independent variables: Age at implantation Age at onset of hearing loss Duration of hearing loss prior to intervention Cause of hearing loss Measures: Parent- and teacher-rated device use – four-point scale ranging from none of the time to all of the time

Page | 97

Reference: Barker, B. A., & Tomblin, J. B. (2004). Bimodal speech perception in infant hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 582-586 Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over approximately 1 year Sample size: 8 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 15 months (11–20 months) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Measures: SPLP

Page | 98

Reference: Bat-Chava, Y., Martin, D., & Kosciw, J. G. (2005). Longitudinal improvements in communication and socialization of deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids: evidence from parental reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 46(12), 1287-1296 Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures 7 years apart Sample size: 41 children and their families Participants: 29 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 59 months 12 children with a hearing aid; age at amplification not stated Mean age of entire sample at second data collection = 10 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation and amplification Dependent variables/outcomes: Communication skills Daily living skills Motor development Social development Receptive language Expressive language Independent variables: Type of hearing technology used: cochlear implantation versus hearing aid Age at implantation Duration of hearing technology use Degree of hearing loss Measures: VABS

Page | 99

Reference: Baumgartner, W. D., Pok, S. M., Egelierler, B., Franz, P., Gstoettner, W., & Hamzavi, J. (2002). The role of age in pediatric cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 62(3), 223-228 Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 3 years post-implantation Sample size: 33 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into two groups according to age at implantation: before and after 3 years; mean age at implantation = 4 years (9 months–9 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: EARS test battery

Page | 100

Reference: Beadle, E. A. R., McKinley, D. J., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Brough, J., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Archbold, S. M. (2005). Long-term functional outcomes and academic-occupational status in implanted children after 10 to 14 years of cochlear implant use. Otology & Neurotology, 26(6), 1152-1160 Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over approximately 10 years post-implantation Sample size: 30 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 2.5–11.1 years, age at final data collection = 14–23.9 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Cochlear implant use Speech perception Speech production: intelligibility Educational placement Vocational outcomes Independent variables: Measures: CAP, SIR

Page | 101

Reference: Blamey, P., Barry, J., Bow, C., Sarant, J., Paatsch, L., & Wales, R. (2001). The development of speech production following cochlear implantation. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 15(5), 363-382 Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 6 years post-implantation Sample size: 9 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 45 months (30–62 months) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Percentage of correctly used phonemes and words, MLU, PBK

Page | 102

Reference: Blamey, P. J., Sarant, J. Z., Paatsch, L. E., Barry, J. G., Bow, C. P., Wales, R. J., et al. (2001). Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(2), 264-285. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 3 years Sample size: 87 Participants: 47 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3.5 years (1.2–8.2 years); mean age at data collection = 7.7 years (4.3–13.0) 40 children with a hearing aid; age at amplification unknown; mean age at data collection = 9.0 years (4.5–13.5) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation and amplification Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Receptive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Duration of hearing loss Duration of device use Measures: PPVT, CELF, CNC, BKB, MLU, number of unintelligible words, percentage of correctly pronounced vowels and consonants

Page | 103

Reference: Bogaerde, B. v. d., & Baker, A. E. (2002). Are young deaf children bilingual? In G. Morgan & W. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 183-206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Study design: Quantitative Case series with post-test outcomes Repeated measures over approximately 7 years Sample size: 3 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age at commencement of study = 0;11, 0;11 and 1;6 years Intervention/focus: Bilingual (sign/spoken) language development in children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: language choice; vocabulary, syntax and morphology Independent variables: Maternal language input: content and accessibility Measures: Mother‟s and child‟s language choice: percentage of spoken, signed and combined signed/spoken input; percentage of mother‟s words and signs seen by child; use of verbs by mother and child; child‟s language - number of different word and sign types, MLU

Page | 104

Reference: Bollard, P. M., Chute, P. M., Popp, A., & Parisier, S. C. (1999). Specific language growth in young children using the Clarion cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 177, Supplement, 119-123 Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 18 months Sample size: 10 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3.1 years (2.2–4.6 years) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Measures: RDLS, PPVT, MLU

Page | 105

Reference: Bornstein, M. H., Selmi, A. M., Haynes, O. M., Painter, K. M., & Marx, E. S. (1999). Representational abilities and the hearing status of child/mother dyads. Child Development, 70(4), 833-852. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 89 mother-child dyads Participants: Children aged 17–30 months and their mothers divided into groups according to the hearing status of child and mother: 42 deaf children: 22 with a hearing mother (dc/HM), 20 with a deaf mother (dc/DM) 47 normally hearing children: 26 with a hearing mother (hc/HM), 21 with a deaf mother (hc/DM) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language (signed and spoken) Symbolic play Independent variables: Parental hearing status Measures: ELI (NDW, word types), RDLS, coding of child play (amount of symbolic play)

Page | 106

Reference: Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 608-635. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 30 Participants: Adults with hearing loss divided into groups according to age at first exposure to sign language: native learners (control group), early learners (first exposure at 5–7 years) and delayed learners (8–13 years) There were no significant differences among the groups in mean length of sign language (ASL) use. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: sentence processing in American Sign Language Independent variables: Age at exposure to sign language Measures: Grammatical judgment task

Page | 107

Reference: Brackett, D., & Zara, C. V. (1998). Communication outcomes related to early implantation. American Journal of Otology, 19(4), 453-460. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 3 years post-implantation Sample size: 33 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in years at implantation: 2–3, 3–5 Intervention/focus: Factors that affect outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: vocabulary Expressive language: vocabulary and syntax-morphology Speech perception Speech production Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: PPVT, EOWPVT, rating of expressive language, ESP, AB Word Lists, CID Phonetic Inventory

Page | 108

Reference: Burkholder, R. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Speech timing and working memory in profoundly deaf children after cochlear implantation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(1), 63-88. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 73 Participants: 37 children 8- to 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3.0 years (1.7–5.0 years); total communication users (primary emphasis on manually coded English and lip-reading) and oral communication users (oral-only communication) 36 normally hearing children matched by age and gender to the cochlear implant children Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech timing Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Independent variables: Cochlear implant Communication mode – child‟s usual or preferred Measures: McGarr, WISC-III digit span test

Page | 109

Reference: Calderon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in deaf children's education programs as a predictor of child's language, early reading, and social-emotional development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(2), 140-155. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 28 Participants: Children with hearing loss who had graduated from a total communication early intervention program; age at data collection = 45–88 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Total communication Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Social-emotional development Reading ability Independent variables: Parental involvement Degree of hearing loss Maternal communication skill Measures: Parent questionnaire on parental involvement, independent rating of parental involvement based on case notes, LPP-PV, PLS, TERA-D, SEAI, CBCL

Page | 110

Reference: Calderon, R., & Low, S. (1998). Early social-emotional, language, and academic development in children with hearing loss: families with and without fathers. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(3), 225-234. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures 36 months apart Sample size: 22 Participants: Children with hearing loss who had graduated from a total communication early intervention program; mean age at final data collection = 62 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Total communication Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Reading ability Nonverbal cognitive ability Social-emotional development Independent variables: Presence or absence of father Measures: LDS, PLS, WPPSI (geometric design subscale), LPP-PV, SEAI, CBCL, TERA-D

Page | 111

Reference: Calderon, R., & Naidu, S. (1998). Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 53-84. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: Study 1: 80 Study 2: 28 Participants: Children with hearing loss who had graduated from a total communication early intervention program; age at data collection = 45–88 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Total communication Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Auditory skills Speech production Social-emotional development Reading ability Independent variables: Age at entry to early intervention program Degree of hearing loss Measures: LDS, Auditory Training Checklist (unpublished measure of auditory skills), modified version of Ling, questionnaires on family perspectives regarding early intervention services and parental involvement in child‟s education, LPP (modified version to assess maternal communication skill), PLS, TERA-D, SEAI

Page | 112

Reference: Chin, S. B., Tsai, P. L., & Gao, S. (2003). Connected speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(4), 440-451. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 98 Participants: 51 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;2 years (1;5–5;10 years), chronological age = 2;11–10;8 years 47 normally hearing children; chronological age = 2;6–6;9 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility Independent variables: Duration of device use Chronological age at testing Measures: BIT

Page | 113

Reference: Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2004). Children with cochlear implants: changing parent and deaf community perspectives. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 673-677. Study design: Quantitative Sample survey Cross-sectional Sample size: 62 Participants: Parents of children with a cochlear implant Intervention/focus: Cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Educational placement Independent variables: Measures: Educational placement: mainstream, special unit, school for the deaf (day or residential) Educational support services used (e.g. sign language interpreter, teacher‟s aide)

Page | 114

Reference: Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Geers, A. E. (2001). Some measures of verbal and spatial working memory in eight- and nine-year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 22(5), 395-411. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 90 Participants: Experiment 1: 45 8- and 9-year old children with a Nucleus 22 cochlear implant; mean length of cochlear implant use = 5;5 years (4;3–6;9 years) 45 normally hearing children matched for age and gender with the cochlear implant group Experiment 2:27 of the original 45 normal hearing children Experiment 3: New sample of 45 8- and 9-year old cochlear implant users Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Independent variables: Measures: Working memory task, WISC digit span, PPVT

Page | 115

Reference: Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2002). Working memory spans as predictors of spoken word recognition and receptive vocabulary in children with cochlear implants. Volta Review, 102(4), 259-280. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 61 Participants: 61 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at testing = 9.2 years (5.3–16.5 years), mean age at implantation = 4.4 years (1.4–8.9); total communication users and „primarily oral‟ communicators Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Communication mode – child‟s usual or preferred Measures: PBK, LNT, PPVT, WISC digit span

Page | 116

Reference: Colletti, V., Carner, M., Miorelli, V., Guida, M., Colletti, L., & Fiorino, F. G. (2005). Cochlear implantation at under 12 months: report on 10 patients. Laryngoscope, 115(3), 445-449. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 2 years post-implantation Sample size: 10 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 4–11 (mean 9.5) months Comparison data is provided from two groups: children implanted at 12–23 and 24–36 months Intervention/focus: Early cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Prelinguistic vocalisation Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: CAP, age at onset of babbling and of babbling spurt

Page | 117

Reference: Connor, C. M. (2006). Examining the communication skills of a young cochlear implant pioneer. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 11(4), 449-460 Study design: Mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) Case series with pre-and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 years Sample size: 1 Participants: Child with a cochlear implant Intervention/focus: Cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility Receptive language: vocabulary Expressive language Independent variables: Measures: McGarr, percentage of correctly pronounced consonants, PPVT, Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary and Passage Comprehension subtests, Woodcock Passage Comprehension subtest, MLU, NDW, thematic analysis of language samples

Page | 118

Reference: Connor, C. M., Craig, H. K., Raudenbush, S. W., Heavner, K., & Zwolan, T. A. (2006). The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation? Ear & Hearing, 27(6), 628-644. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 4 years post-implantation Sample size: 100 Participants: 100 children with a cochlear implant; four groups based on age at implantation (1–2.5 years, 2.6–3.5 years, 3.6–7 years, 7.1–10 years). All children were strictly oral communicators, i.e. speech with or without lip-reading, no sign language. Intervention/focus: Early cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: vocabulary Speech production Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: PPVT, consonant-production accuracy (SPEECH)

Page | 119

Reference: Connor, C. M., & Zwolan, T. A. (2004). Examining multiple sources of influence on the reading comprehensive skills of children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 509-526. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 1 year Sample size: 91 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at testing = 11 years (SD=2.7), mean age at implantation = 6.8 (3.1) years; 48 users of oral communication and 43 of total communication (speech plus manually coded English) programs. Children were classified according to the type of program they were enrolled in, parental report and child communication at time of data collection. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Reading ability Expressive and receptive vocabulary Independent variables: Pre-implantation language: vocabulary Pre-implantation mode of communication Pre-implantation audition Duration of device use Age of onset of hearing loss Socioeconomic status Gender Race/ethnicity Measures: Woodcock Passage Comprehension subtest, Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary subtest, EOWPVT

Page | 120

Reference: Damen, G. W., van den Oever-Goltstein, M. H., Langereis, M. C., Chute, P. M., & Mylanus, E. A. (2006). Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 115(7), 542-552. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 69 Participants: 32 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at time of study = 9.0 years (4.5–13 years); mean age at implantation = 3.7 years (1.0–9.7 years) 37 normally hearing classmates of the children with a cochlear implant Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Functioning in mainstream education Independent variables: Duration of hearing loss Duration of device use Age at implantation Age at onset of hearing loss Measures: AMP, SIFTER, Bosman and Gestel-Nijmegen Dutch language tests of phoneme and word identification

Page | 121

Reference: Dettman, S. J., Fiket, H., Dowell, R. C., Charlton, M., Williams, S. S., Tomov, A. M., et al. (2004). Speech perception results for children using cochlear implants who have additional special needs. Volta Review, 104(4), 361-392. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 49 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant, divided into three groups on the basis of cognitive performance: normal/average or above (n=27), mild/low-average/borderline normal (14), moderate or significant delay/intellectually disabled (8); group means for age at testing = 60.1–79.2 months, group means for age at implantation = 25.1–27.7 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Presence or absence of other disabilities (cognitive/developmental delay) Measures: Clinical rating of open- and closed-set speech perception using a wide range of tests and measures including PLOTT and PBK

Page | 122

Reference: Dillon, C. M., Burkholder, R. A., Cleary, M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Nonword repetition by children with cochlear implants: accuracy ratings from normal-hearing listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1103-1116. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 76 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3.3 years (SD=1.0); total communication (use of sign, usually signed English, and lip-reading) and oral-only communicators Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Nonword repetition task (involving speech perception, speech production and working memory) Independent variables: Age at onset of hearing loss Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Duration of hearing loss prior to implantation Chronological age at testing Measures: CNRep, WIPI, WISC digit span, McGarr

Page | 123

Reference: Dodd, B., McIntosh, B., & Woodhouse, L. (1998). Early lipreading ability and speech and language development of hearing-impaired pre-schoolers. In R. Campbell, B. Dodd & D. Burnham (Eds.), Hearing by eye II: advances in the psychology of speechreading and auditory-visual speech (pp. 229-242). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over four testing sessions Sample size: 30 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age at data collection = 30–57 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive development Receptive and expressive language Speech production: phonology Pragmatic language development Independent variables: Lip reading skills Measures: VMI, ITPA, RDLS, TACL, PPVT, EOWPVT, MLU, TTR, phoneme repertoire, percent consonants correct, speech error patterns

Page | 124

Reference: Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2006, 29-30 November 2006). Rate of progress in listening, language and speech development for children in an auditory-verbal program. Paper presented at the Queensland Health Healthy Hearing Symposium, Brisbane. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 21 months Sample size: 54 Participants: 25 children with hearing loss enrolled in an auditory-verbal program; mean age = 5.5 years 29 children with normal hearing matched by language age to the children with hearing loss; mean chronological age = 3 years Intervention/focus: Auditory-verbal programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Speech production Independent variables: Measures: PLS, PPVT, CELF, parent survey on children‟s language development

Page | 125

Reference: Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (in press). Outcomes of an auditory-verbal program for children with hearing loss: a comparative study with a matched group of children with normal hearing. Volta Review. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 9 months Sample size: 58 Participants: 29 children with hearing loss enrolled in an auditory-verbal program; mean age = 5.5 years 29 children with normal hearing matched by language age to the children with hearing loss; mean chronological age = 3 years Intervention/focus: Auditory-verbal programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Speech production Independent variables: Measures: PLS, PPVT, CELF

Page | 126

Reference: Dowell, R. C., Dettman, S. J., Blamey, P. J., Barker, E. J., & Clark, G. M. (2002). Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes. Cochlear Implants International, 3(1), 1-18. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods post-implantation ranging from 3 months to 10 years Sample size: 102 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age = > 4 years, mean age at implantation = 5.9 years (1.5–17.6 years); users of exclusively oral communication and users of speech plus some level of „manual supplement‟ Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Age at onset of hearing loss Duration of hearing loss prior to implantation Duration of device use Cause and nature of hearing loss (meningitis/non-meningitis, progressive/non-progressive) Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Presence or absence of other disabilities Implant characteristics: processing strategy Measures: PBK, BKB

Page | 127

Reference: Duncan, J. (1999). Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting. Volta Review, 101(4), 193-211. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 22 Participants: 11 children with hearing loss attending an oral integrated preschool; age = 3.8–5.2 years 11 normally hearing children attending the same preschool; age = 3.7–5.3 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of integrated programs for children with hearing loss Outcomes of oral rehabilitation approaches Dependent variables/outcomes: Pragmatic language development: conversational skills Independent variables: Measures: Social Organization of Discourse Checklist/Conversational Skills (unpublished measure)

Page | 128

Reference: Easterbrooks, S. R., O'Rourke, C. M., & Todd, T. W. (2000). Child and family factors associated with deaf children's success in auditory-verbal therapy. American Journal of Otology, 21(3), 341-344. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 40 Participants: 40 children aged less than 10.5 years with hearing loss who had attended auditory-verbal programs and their families Intervention/focus: Auditory-verbal programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Outcomes of auditory-verbal therapy: successful graduation versus leaving because of dissatisfaction Independent variables: Gender Presence or absence of additional disabilities Having a cochlear implant Maternal employment status Parental involvement Social-emotional development Educational placement: mainstream versus special setting Presence or absence of other disabilities: having a delay in reading/language development of >1 year Measures:

Page | 129

Reference: Easterbrooks, S. R., & O'Rourke, C. M. (2001). Gender differences in response to auditory-verbal intervention in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 309-319. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 70 Participants: 40 children with hearing loss who had attended auditory-verbal programs and their families Intervention/focus: Auditory-verbal programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Social-emotional development Reading/language delay Educational placement: mainstream versus special setting Independent variables: Gender Measures: LIPS, parent interview and questionnaire data on attitudes to auditory-verbal therapy and children‟s language progress

Page | 130

Reference: Edwards, L. C., Frost, R., & Witham, F. (2006). Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(9), 1593-1600. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 2 years Sample size: 32 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at testing = 1.9 years (1.2–2.8 years); mean age at implantation (switch-on) = 2.4 years (1.5–3.4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Speech production: intelligibility Independent variables: Presence or absence of other disabilities (cognitive/developmental delay) Measures: SGS II, IT-MAIS, SIR, E2L

Page | 131

Reference: Ertmer, D., J. (2001). Emergence of a vowel system in a young cochlear implant recipient. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(4), 803. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre-and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 months Sample size: 1 Participants: Child with a cochlear implant; age at commencement of study = 17 months, age at implantation = 19 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Independent variables: Measures: SAEVD

Page | 132

Reference: Ertmer, D., J., Young, N., Grohne, K., Mellon, J., A. , Johnson, C., Corbett, K., et al. (2002). Vocal development in young children with cochlear implants: profiles and implications for intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(3), 184-195. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 months Sample size: 2 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at commencement of study = 8 and 26 months, age at implantation = 10 and 28 months respectively Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Independent variables: Measures: Classification of vocalisations – precanonical, canonical or postcanonical

Page | 133

Reference: Ertmer, D. J., Leonard, J. S., & Pachuilo, M. L. (2002). Communication intervention for children with cochlear implants: two case studies. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(3), 205-217. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 20 months (child 1) and approximately 10 months (child 2) Sample size: 2 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at commencement of data collection = 7;6 and 4;2 years, age at implantation = 7;6 and 3;0 years (children 1 and 2 respectively) Intervention/focus: Speech-language therapy following cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception and other auditory skills Independent variables: Measures: Wide range of receptive and expressive language measures including Ling 6, PPVT, RDLS

Page | 134

Reference: Ertmer, D. J., & Mellon, J. A. (2001). Beginning to talk at 20 months: early vocal development in a young cochlear implant recipient. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing research, 44(1), 192-206. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 months Sample size: 1 Participants: Child with a cochlear implant; age at commencement of study = 17 months, age at implantation = 19 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Expressive and receptive vocabulary Independent variables: Measures: SAEVD; MCDI: Words and Gestures; precanonical, canonical and postcanonical vocalisation, consonant production

Page | 135

Reference: Ertmer, D. J., Strong, L. M., & Sadagopan, N. (2003). Beginning to communicate after cochlear implantation: oral language development in a young child. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(2), 328-340. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 months Sample size: 1 Participants: Child with a cochlear implant; age at commencement of study = 17 months, age at implantation = 19 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: vocabulary and comprehension Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Expressive speech: lexical diversity and pragmatics Independent variables: Measures: PPVT, ACLC, BIT, Expressive Vocabulary Test, classification of utterances by phonological type and communicative intent, TTRs, MLU

Page | 136

Reference: Fabbretti, D., Volterra, V., & Pontecorvo, C. (1998). Written language abilities in deaf Italians. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3(3), 231-244. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 30 Participants: Three groups of adults: 10 deaf native signers, 10 hearing subjects with deaf parents and 10 hearing subjects who had had no contact with deaf people or sign language Intervention/focus: Sign language: influence of sign language on written language ability Dependent variables/outcomes: Written language ability Independent variables: Measures: Series of writing tasks: NDW; use of non-standard forms

Page | 137

Reference: Flipsen, P., & Colvard, L. G. (2006). Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(2), 93-108. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods ranging from 12 to 21 months post-implantation Sample size: 6 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at commencement of study = 5;0±0;10 years, mean age at implantation = 2;4±0;6 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production: intelligibility Independent variables: Chronological age at testing Duration of device use Measures: II

Page | 138

Reference: Fortnum, H. M., Stacey, P. C., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). An exploration of demographic bias in a questionnaire survey of hearing-impaired children: Implications for comparisons of children with and without cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(12), 2043-2054. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 2858 Participants: 468 children with a cochlear implant 2390 children with a hearing loss without a cochlear implanted Intervention/focus: Demographic and other background characteristics of children with a cochlear implant Variables examined: Degree of hearing loss Gender Socioeconomic status Cause of hearing loss Presence or absence of other disabilities: number of additional disabilities Parental hearing status Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred

Page | 139

Reference: Fryauf-Bertschy, H., Tyler, R. S., Kelsay, D. M., Gantz, B. J., & et al. (1997). Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(1), 183-199. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 5 years post-implantation Sample size: 34 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 2/6–15;4 years. All participants were total communication users, with varying degrees of use of signing. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: MTS, ESP, WIPI, Vowel Perception Test, PBK

Page | 140

Reference: Geers, A., Brenner, C., & Davidson, L. (2003). Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 24S-35S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-section Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Child and family characteristics:

Age at testing Age at implantation Age at onset of hearing loss Nonverbal cognitive ability Family structure: family size Socioeconomic background Gender

Educational characteristics: Intensity of intervention: number of hours of therapy Therapist experience Parental involvement Educational placement: private versus public school, mainstream versus special education Communication mode of program attended by child (rated on a scale from 1 to 6: 1 – sign-only; 2 – almost always simultaneous communication; 3 – speech only part of the time ; 4 – cued speech; 5 – auditory-oral; 6 – auditory-verbal)

Implant characteristics: Processing strategy Number of inserted electrodes Dynamic range Loudness growth

Measures: ESP, VIDSPAC, WIPI, LNT, CAVET

Page | 141

Reference: Geers, A., Spehar, B., & Sedey, A. (2002). Use of speech by children from total communication programs who wear cochlear implants. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 50-58. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 27 Participants: 8- and 9- year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3.7 years (2.5–4.9 years); all enrolled in total communication programs (sign language plus speech) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation for children in total communication programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Speech production: intelligibility Receptive language Expressive language (both spoken and signed): syntactic complexity, lexical diversity Independent variables: Mode of communication: child‟s usual or preferred Measures: WIPI, McGarr, BIT, TACL-R, NDW, number of words and morphemes per utterance, percentages of words signed and spoken

Page | 142

Reference: Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 59S-68S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Reading ability Independent variables: Child and family characteristics:




Phonological processing Speech perception and production, language (using results reported in earlier publications from the same data set) Measures:

Page | 143

WRMT, PIAT, WISC-III digit span, lexical decision task, rhyming task

Page | 144

Reference: Geers, A. E. (2004). Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 634-638. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 172 Participants: 133 congenitally deaf 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;6 years (2;0–5;2 years) 39 8- and 9-year old children with deafness acquired by age 3 years and a cochlear implant; implanted by aged 5 Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Receptive and expressive language Reading ability Independent variables: Age at implantation Duration of device use Duration of deafness Measures: Large battery of speech, language and achievement measures including LNT, CAVET, BKB, ESP, WIPI, VIDSPAC, ARQ, McGarr, fricative and plosive production, parent report of speech intelligibility, MLU, IPSyn, NDW, TACL, PIAT, WRMT

Page | 145

Reference: Geers, A. E., & Brenner, C. (2003). Background and educational characteristics of prelingually deaf children implanted by five years of age. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 2S-14S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Demographic and other background characteristics of children with a cochlear implant Variables examined: Child and family characteristics:

Age at testing Age at implantation Nonverbal cognitive ability Family structure: family size Socioeconomic background Gender

Educational characteristics: Intensity of intervention: number of hours of therapy Parental involvement Educational placement: private versus public school, mainstream versus special education Communication mode of program attended by child (rated on a scale from 1 to 6: 1 – sign-only; 2 – almost always simultaneous communication; 3 – speech only part of the time ; 4 – cued speech; 5 – auditory-oral; 6 – auditory-verbal)


Reference: Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J. G., & Sedey, A. L. (2003). Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 46S-58S.

Page | 146

Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Child and family characteristics:



Measures: TACL-R, IPSyn, MLU, NDW, use of bound morphemes, narrative task, speech/sign interview Reference: Gordon, K. A., Twitchell, K. A., Papsin, B. C., & Harrison, R. V. (2001). Effect of residual hearing prior to cochlear implantation on speech perception in children. Journal of Otolaryngology, 30(4), 216-223. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort

Page | 147

Repeated measures over 9 years Sample size: 37 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 5.7 years. The children were divided into two groups based on their hearing threshold: <95 dB (n=37) and ≥95 dB (n=96). Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Measures: WIPI, PBK

Page | 148

Reference: Harrison, R. V., Gordon, K. A., & Mount, R. J. (2005). Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(3), 252-261. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 8 years (study 1) or 5 years (study 2) post-implantation Sample size: 82 Participants: Study 1: 82 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 5.4 years (2.0–13.3 years). The children were allocated to subgroups based on age at implantation (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10–13 years). Study 2: 82 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 6.3 years (1.9–5.4 years). Binary partitioning was used to analyse the effect of age at implantation. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: TAC, GASP, PBK

Page | 149

Reference: Hassanzadeh, S., Farhadi, M., Daneshi, A., & Emamdjomeh, H. (2002). The effects of age on auditory speech perception development in cochlear-implanted prelingually deaf children. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 126(5), 524-527. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 2 years post-implantation Sample size: 119 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 7;1 years (1;6–16;3 years). The participants were allocated to six groups based on age in years at implantation: 0–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8–9, 10–11 and 12. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Persian measure of speech perception

Page | 150

Reference: Hehar, S. S., Nikolopoulos, T. P., Gibbin, K. P., & O'Donoghue, G. M. (2002). Surgery and functional outcomes in deaf children receiving cochlear implants before age 2 years. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 128(1), 11-14. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 2 years post-implantation Sample size: 12 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 20.5 months (17–23 months) The results were compared with data obtained from a group of children who received an implant between the ages of 2 and 5 years. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: LiP, CAP

Page | 151

Reference: Helfand, M., Thompson, D. C. M., Davis, R., McPhillips, H., Homer, C. J., & Lieu, T. L. (2001). Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review Evidence Number 5 Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. Thompson, D., McPhillips, H., Davis, R., Lieu, T., Homer, C., & Helfand, M. (2001). Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 286(16), 2000-2010. Study design: Systematic review of observational studies Participants: Children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Varies across studies reviewed Independent variables: Age at identification

Page | 152

Reference: Hintermair, M. (2006). Parental resources, parental stress, and socioemotional development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 11(4), 493-513. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 416 Participants: 213 mothers and 213 fathers of children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Social-emotional development Communicative competence Independent variables: Parental coping/stress Communication mode of family Parental educational level Gender Degree of hearing loss Age at data collection Having a cochlear implant Presence or absence of other disabilities Age at identification of hearing loss Cause of hearing loss Measures: PSI, SDQ-D, SOC, SSQ, self developed scale Reference: Hodges, A. V., Dolan Ash, M., Balkany, T. J., Schloffman, J. J., & Butts, S. L. (1999). Speech perception results in children with cochlear implants: contributing factors. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 121(1), 31-34.

Page | 153

Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 58 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 6 years (2–14 years); age at data collection = 2–17 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Duration of device use Age at implantation Socioeconomic status Bilingual home Participation in private therapy Educational placement: private versus public school Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Measures: ESP, NU-CHIPS, Minimal Pairs Test, PBK, Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status

Page | 154

Reference: Holt, R. F., & Kirk, K. I. (2005). Speech and language development in cognitively delayed children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 26(2), 132-148. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 2–3 years Sample size: 69 Participants: 19 children with a cochlear implant with cognitive delay; mean age at implantation = 38 months (SD=14) 50 children with a cochlear implant without cognitive delay or any other disability; mean age at implantation = 29 months Within these groups (delayed, not delayed) a comparison was made between oral communicators (no use of sign) and total communicators (speech plus manually coded English). Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Presence or absence of other disabilities Mode of communication: child‟s usual or preferred Measures: IT-MAIS, GAEL-P (adapted to measure speech perception), Mr Potato Head Task, PSI, PPVT, RDLS

Page | 155

Reference: Horn, D. L., Davis, R. A. O., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2005). Behavioral inhibition and clinical outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Laryngoscope, 115(4), 595-600. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods ranging from 1 to 6 years post-implant Sample size: 47 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 4.4±1.4 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Variables examined: Cognitive development: response delay (behavioural inhibition) The first part of the study examines the effect of various variables on response delay: Age at onset of hearing loss Cognitive ability (nonverbal IQ) Degree of hearing loss Gender Cause of hearing loss Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Duration of device use The second part of the study examines response delay as a predictor of speech perception, speech intelligibility, and receptive and expressive language. Measures: Preschool Delay Task (Gordon Diagnostic System), PBK, PPVT, RDLS, BIT

Page | 156

Reference: Horn, D. L., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2006). Divergence of fine and gross motor skills in prelingually deaf children: Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope, 116(8), 1500-1506. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over Sample size: 23 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implant (activation) = 28.2±13.8 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Pre-implantation motor skills: gross and fine Measures: VABS, GAEL-P (used as a measure of speech perception), RDLS, PPVT

Page | 157

Reference: Houston, D. M., Carter, A. K., Pisoni, D. B., Kirk, K. l., & Ying, E. A. (2005). Word learning in children following cochlear implantation. Volta Review, 105(1), 41-72. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 48 Participants: 24 children with a cochlear implant; 12 „young‟ CI (mean age at implantation and testing = 21 and 38 months respectively), 12 „old‟ CI (mean age at implantation and testing = 37 and 60 months respectively); age at testing = 28–68 months 24 children with normal hearing age-matched with the children with a cochlear implant Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Age at implantation Chronological age at testing Duration of device use Measures: Novel word-learning task

Page | 158

Reference: Houston, D. M., Pisoni, D. B., Kirk, K. I., Ying, E. A., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2003). Speech perception skills of deaf infants following cochlear implantation: a first report. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 67(5), 479-495. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods from approximately 3 to 8 months Sample size: 64 Participants: 16 children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation < 2 years 24 normally hearing 6-month olds and 24 normally hearing 9-month-olds Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills: discrimination of speech contrasts, attention to speech Independent variables: Measures: Visual habitation procedure

Page | 159

Reference: Houston, D. M., Ying, E. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2001). Development of pre- word-learning skills in infants with cochlear implants. Volta Review, 103(4), 303-326. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods ranging from 1 day to 18 months post-implantation Sample size: 105 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant: „earlier implanted‟ (mean age at activation = 11.9 months) and „later implanted‟ (mean age at activation = 19.4 months) Comparison group of normally hearing children aged 6 months (n=25), 9 months (26), 18 months (24) or 30 months (12) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills: audiovisual integration Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: SPLP

Page | 160

Reference: James, D., Rajput, K., Brown, T., Sirimanna, T., Brinton, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Phonological awareness in deaf children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1511-1528. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 1 year Sample size: 40 Participants: 19 children with a cochlear implant aged 6-10 years at commencement of study; mean duration of implant use = 44 months (SD=3.5) 21 children with a hearing aid Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception: phonological awareness Independent variables: Measures: Author-devised tasks of syllables (syllable number), rhyme, and phoneme awareness

Page | 161

Reference: Kane, M. O., Schopmeyer, B., Mellon, N. K., Wang, N. Y., & Niparko, J. K. (2004). Prelinguistic communication and subsequent language acquisition in children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 130(5), 619-623. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods averaging 20 months Sample size: 18 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 14.2 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Pre-implantation language Measures: CSBS, RDLS

Page | 162

Reference: Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., Petrou, S., et al. (2006). Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(20), 2131-2141. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 183 Participants: 120 children with hearing loss divided into two groups according to age in months at identification of hearing loss: ≤9, >9 63 normally hearing children matched by age to the children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Measures: CCC, TROG, BPVS, Renfrew Language Scales: Bus Story Test, Raven‟s Progressive Matrices

Page | 163

Reference: Kiese-Himmel, C., & Reeh, M. (2006). Assessment of expressive vocabulary outcomes in hearing-impaired children with hearing aids: do bilaterally hearing-impaired children catch up? Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 120(8), 619-626. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 18 months Sample size: 27 Participants: Children with hearing loss followed post-diagnosis; mean age at identification of hearing loss = 31 months (14–52) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Age at onset of hearing loss Age at identification of hearing loss Duration of device use Age at fitting of hearing aids Measures: German picture-naming tests, KABC (German version, vocabulary subtest), CMMS, Raven‟s Progressive Matrices

Page | 164

Reference: Kiese-Himmel, C., Schroff, J., & Kruse, E. (1997). Identification and diagnostic evaluation of hearing impairments in early childhood in German-speaking infants. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 254(3), 133-139. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 41 Participants: Consecutive series of children with hearing loss diagnosed in an audiology clinic over 1 year; median age at identification of hearing loss = 32 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language: vocabulary Use of device Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Measures: German language development test (MFED)

Page | 165

Reference: Kirk, K. I., Miyamoto, R. T., Ying, E. A., Perdew, A. E., & Zuganelis, H. (2000). Cochlear implantation in young children: effects of age at implantation and communication mode. Volta Review, 102(4), 127-144. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 3 years post-implantation Sample size: 106 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age at implantation (< 2;0, 2;0–4;11 and ≥5;0 years) and communication method (oral or total communication) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Age at implantation Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Measures: GAEL-P (used as a measure of speech perception), Mr Potato Head Task, PPVT, RDLS

Page | 166

Reference: Kishon-Rabin, L., Taitelbaum-Swead, R., Ezrati-Vinacour, R., & Hildesheimer, M. (2005). Prelexical vocalization in normal hearing and hearing-impaired infants before and after cochlear implantation and its relation to early auditory skills. Ear and Hearing, 26(4 SUPPL.), 17S-29S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods averaging 19 months Sample size: 187 Participants: 24 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at commencement of study = 15 months (8–23), mean age at implantation = 19 months (11–29) 163 normally hearing children, mean age at commencement of study = 9 months (0.5–20) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Prelexical vocalisation Independent variables: Auditory skills Measures: IT-MAIS, PRISE

Page | 167

Reference: Lederberg, A. R., & Everhart, V. S. (1998). Communication between deaf children and their hearing mothers: the role of language, gesture, and vocalization. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 887-899. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 8 months Sample size: 40 mother-child dyads Participants: 20 children with hearing loss and their hearing mothers; age at first data collection = 22 months 20 children with normal hearing and their hearing mothers; matched with the children with hearing loss by sex and maternal employment, education and marital status Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Outcomes of childhood hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Independent variables: Measures: Number of utterances by type (speech, sign); language rated on a five-level scale from non-linguistic (production of no linguistic utterances) to highest (production of multi-word utterances with an average length of more than 2)

Page | 168

Reference: Lederberg, A. R., & Everhart, V. S. (2000). Conversations between deaf children and their hearing mothers: pragmatic and dialogic characteristics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 303-322. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 8 months Sample size: 40 mother-child dyads Participants: 20 children with hearing loss and their hearing mothers; age at first data collection = 22 months 20 children with normal hearing and their hearing mothers; matched with the children with hearing loss by sex and maternal employment, education and marital status Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Outcomes of childhood hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Pragmatic language development Independent variables: Measures: Coding of mother-child conversation by topic, attentional focus and pragmatic function

Page | 169

Reference: Leybaert, J., & Lechat, J. (2001). Variability in deaf children's spelling: the effect of language experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 554-562. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 99 Participants: 67 children with hearing loss grouped by age (8 or 11 years), current communication mode (cued speech or sign language) and age of exposure to current communication mode 32 children with normal hearing grouped by age (8 or 11 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Spelling Independent variables: Communication mode of family Age at exposure to language: early at home versus late at school Measures: Lexical decision task

Page | 170

Reference: Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3(2), 80-134. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 86 Participants: College students with hearing loss from varying educational backgrounds Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Reading and written language ability, including morphology, syntax and vocabulary Independent variables: Cognitive factors: use of speech, sign and visual recoding strategies in memory tasks, reading, writing, and related English processing tasks Current communication mode: percent speech, sign, ASL and manually coded English Communication mode used in prior education: years of oral and TC education Speech discrimination Age at exposure to sign language Speech intelligibility Measures: Working memory task; DAT, Abstract Reasoning subtest; CAT, Reading Comprehension subtest; NTID Writing Test indices of the extent to which individuals depended on speech, sign and vision in memory; reported use of speech, sign and finger-spelling; scores for working memory derived from experimental data; tests of syntax, morphology, semantics and spelling

Page | 171

Reference: Loots, G., Devise, I., & Jacquet, W. (2005). The impact of visual communication on the intersubjective development of early parent-child interaction with 18- to 24-month-old deaf toddlers. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 10(4), 357-375. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 16 Participants: 18–24 month old children with hearing loss and their parents (n=31) grouped by parental hearing status and communication mode: hearing parents, oral communication; hearing parents, total communication; deaf parents, sign language Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Quality of parent-child interaction: intersubjectivity (interaction involving shared involvement in a reciprocal exchange) Independent variables: Communication mode of family: oral, total communication (signed Dutch), Flemish Sign Language (a natural sign language) Measures: Intersubjectivity Index (number of observed moments of intersubjectivity times mean length of moments)

Page | 172

Reference: Magnuson, M. (2000). Infants with congenital deafness: on the importance of early sign language acquisition. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(1), 6-14. Study design: Qualitative Multiple sources of data Repeated measures over approximately 3 years Sample size: 2 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age at completion of study = 3;5 and 4;6 years, age at identification of hearing loss = birth and 2 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Sign language Bilingual language development of children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Language development Social-emotional development Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Measures: Interviews with the parents, teachers and audiological pedagogists, analysis of observations

Page | 173

Reference: Manrique, M., Cervera-Paz, F. J., Huarte, A., & Molina, M. (2004). Prospective long-term auditory results of cochlear implantation in prelinguistically deafened children: the importance of early implantation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Supplementum, - (552), 55-63. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 8 years post-implantation Sample size: 182 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in years at implantation: 0–3, 4–6, 7–10 and 11–14 Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive language: vocabulary Expressive language Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Vowel confusion test, series of daily words test, bisyllabic words, CID, PPVT, RDLS

Page | 174

Reference: Marino, E., Furlonger, B. E., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C. (2003). The relationship between parent coping strategies, social-emotional development and language functioning of hearing-impaired children. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 9, 11-18. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 16 Participants: Parents of children attending an early intervention program for children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Social development Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Parental coping strategies Measures: CSA, Social Competence Questionnaire, LDS

Page | 175

Reference: Martineau, G., Lamarche, P. A., Marcoux, S., & Bernard, P. (2001). The effect of early intervention on academic achievement of hearing-impaired children. Early Education and Development, 12(2), 275-289. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 112 Participants: Children with hearing loss aged 6–12 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Academic achievement Independent variables: Intensity of intervention: hours per week provided to child and parents; hours per week provided to child by a speech therapist, audiologist and psychologist and number of hours per week in a special nursery or day care centre for hearing impaired children Target of intervention: family-centred versus child-centred services Age at first intervention Service setting: home- versus centre-based Parental compliance: hours per week on home exercises recommended by professionals Degree of hearing loss Socioeconomic status: family income Parental level of education Family structure: number of children in family and birth rank of child with hearing loss Communication mode of program attended by child Measures: School grades in reading/writing and mathematics; presence or absence of an academic delay

Page | 176

Reference: Marttila, T. I., & Karikoski, J. O. (2006). Hearing aid use in Finnish children--impact of hearing loss variables and detection delay. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(3), 475-480. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 328 Participants: Children and adolescents with hearing loss aged 1–18 years grouped by mode of hearing aid use: bilateral, alternating unilaterally, unilateral right ear, unilateral left ear, and not in use Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Use of hearing aid Use of bilateral versus unilateral amplification Independent variables: Age at fitting of hearing aids Degree of hearing loss Gender Age at data collection Measures: Use of hearing aids as determined from case notes and professional report

Page | 177

Reference: Mayberry, R. I and Lock, E (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369-384. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 54 Participants: Adults (age = 16–70 years) with different early language experiences: 14 participants with hearing loss who acquired sign language early in life 13 participants with hearing loss who had no accessible language until age 6 or older 13 participants with normal hearing who acquired English as a second language at school 14 participants with normal hearing who had English as their native language Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: grammar Independent variables: Age at exposure to sign language Measures: Grammatical judgment and comprehension tasks

Page | 178

Reference: Mayne, A. M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Sedey, A. L. (1998). Receptive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 29-52. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 168 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age = 8–22 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Presence or absence of additional disabilities Race/ethnicity Degree of hearing loss Socioeconomic status: maternal level of education Family communication mode: use of signs versus no use of signs Measures: Macarthur CDI

Page | 179

Reference: Mayne, A. M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., & Carey, A. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 1-28. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 113 Participants: Children with hearing loss; mean age = 31 months (24–37) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Nonverbal cognitive ability Presence or absence of additional disabilities Race/ethnicity Degree of hearing loss Parental/caregiver level of education Family communication mode: use of signs versus no use of signs Measures: Macarthur CDI

Page | 180

Reference: McCaffrey, H. A., Davis, B. L., MacNeilage, P. F., & von Hapsburg, D. (1999). Multichannel cochlear implantation and the organization of early speech. Volta Review, 101(1), 5-29 Warner-Czyz, A. D., Davis, B. L., & Morrison, H. M. (2005). Production accuracy in a young cochlear implant recipient. Volta Review, 105(2), 151-173. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre-and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 14 months Sample size: 1 Participants: Child with a cochlear implant, age at commencement of study = 23 months, age at implantation = 24 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Measures: Frequency counts and percentages for segmental features of speech e.g. vowel and consonant segments, syllable number; phonetic inventory; word accuracy; RITLS

Page | 181

Reference: Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1997). Effects of mother and infant hearing status on interactions at twelve and eighteen months. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 26-36. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 6 months Sample size: 80 mother-child dyads Participants: 80 children and their mothers divided into groups according to hearing status of mother and child; 40 deaf children: 20 with a hearing mother (Dh), 20 with a deaf mother (Dd) 40 normally hearing children: 19 with a hearing mother (Hh), 21 with a deaf mother (Hd) Age at data collection = 12 and 18 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Quality of parent-child interaction Independent variables: Parental hearing status Measures: Observational rating scale for maternal behaviours (e.g. sensitivity), child behaviours (e.g. participation) and interaction of mother-child dyads (e.g. reciprocal turn-taking)

Page | 182

Reference: Meyer, T. A., Svirsky, M. A., Kirk, K. I., & Miyamoto, R. T. (1998). Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 846-858. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 8 years post-implantation Sample size: 132 Participants: 74 children with a cochlear implant divided into two groups based on the communication method of the program attended by the child: oral (mean age at implantation = 5.7 years) or total communication (mean age at implantation = 4.8 years) 58 children with a hearing aid divided by program communication method (oral or TC) and degree of hearing loss (90–100 dB or 101–110 dB). Hearing aid fitting occurred on average at or before 18 months in all groups. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Type of device used: cochlear implantation versus hearing aid Measures: Minimal Pairs Test, Common Phrases Test

Page | 183

Reference: Moeller, M. P. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), E43. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 112 Participants: Children with hearing loss aged 5–7 years; mean age at identification of hearing loss = 1.6 years (birth–4.5) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language: vocabulary Cognitive ability and functioning: verbal reasoning Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Age at entry to early intervention program Degree of hearing loss Nonverbal cognitive ability Mode of communication of program attended by child: oral versus total communication Parental involvement Measures: PPVT, PLAI, rating of parental involvement by service providers

Page | 184

Reference: Moeller, M. P., Donaghy, K. F., Beauchaine, K. L., Lewis, D. E., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (1996). Longitudinal study of FM system use in nonacademic settings: effects on language development. Ear and Hearing, 17(1), 28-41. Study design: Quantitative Pseudorandomised controlled trial Repeated measures over 2 years Sample size: 10 Participants: Children with hearing loss randomly allocated to two equal groups: use of hearing aids only or use of an FM system in the home setting in addition to amplification Intervention/focus: FM systems Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Use of device Auditory skills: listening Independent variables: Measures: Grammatical development: mean sentence length, complexity of sentences, use of bound morphemes, pronoun errors; parent report measure of child‟s auditory responsiveness in routine listening environments

Page | 185

Reference: Moeller, M. P., & Schick, B. (2006). Relations between maternal input and theory of mind understanding in deaf children. Child Development, 77(3), 751-766. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 48 dyads Participants: 22 children with hearing loss and their mothers; age of children = 6.9 years (4.3–9.9) 26 normally hearing children and their mothers; mean age of children = 5.0 years (4.3–5.9) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive development: theory of mind (reasoning about false beliefs) Independent variables: Type of device used: cochlear implant versus hearing aid Maternal sign language skills Sibling sign use Measures: IPSyn, false beliefs task, coding of maternal talk

Page | 186

Reference: Musselman, C., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (1996). The development of spoken language in deaf children: explaining the unexplained variance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1(2), 108-121. Study design: Mixed methods Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 4 years Sample size: 20 Participants: Children with hearing loss selected from a larger data set of 103 children: the 10 children whose spoken language was most above expectation („high speech‟ group) and the 10 children whose spoken language was most below („low speech‟ group); mean age = 7 years in both groups Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Speech production Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Age at fitting of hearing aids Use of unilateral versus bilateral hearing aids Gender Family structure: number of siblings Parental educational level Socioeconomic status Maternal employment Age at intervention Mode of communication of program attended by child Educational placement: integrated versus segregated Extent of parent training Measures: Variety of measures based on Ling‟s phonological level analysis, WISC, LIPS, parent interview

Page | 187

Reference: Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (1997). Communication of oral deaf and normally hearing children at 36 months of age. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40(6), 1314-1327. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 18 months Sample size: 36 Participants: 18 orally-educated children with hearing loss and 18 normally hearing children; age at commencement of study = 36 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of oral habilitation methods Outcomes of childhood hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Independent variables: Pragmatic language development: rate and type of communicative acts Mode of communication: gesture or sign alone, vocalisation, intelligible speech Measures: Coding scheme for children‟s speech, vocalisations, gestures and signs

Page | 188

Reference: Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2003a). Hearing status, language modality, and young children's communicative and linguistic behavior. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(4), 422-437. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 160 Participants: Children with hearing loss: 38 children enrolled in total communication (simultaneous communication) programs 38 children in programs emphasising oral communication 84 normally hearing children Age at data collection = 18–54 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Pragmatic language development: rate and type of communicative acts Mode of communication: gesture or sign alone, vocalisation, intelligible speech Receptive and expressive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Parental sign language competence Mode of communication of program attended by child Measures: Coding scheme for children‟s speech, vocalisations, gestures and signs; MLU; NDW

Page | 189

Reference: Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2003b). Personal, social, and family adjustment in school-aged children with a cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 69S-81S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-section Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Social-emotional development: adjustment Independent variables: Child and family characteristics:




Measures: Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (modified version), M-K, parent rating of satisfaction with cochlear implantation

Page | 190

Reference: Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2006). Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of age. Ear and Hearing, 27(3), 286-298. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 76 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;6 years (12–38 months). All of the participants were in intervention programs using exclusively spoken language. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Aided hearing threshold: hearing aid Age at fitting of hearing aids Duration of device use: hearing aid Age at implantation Aided hearing threshold: cochlear implant Duration of device use: cochlear implant Measures: MLU, NDW, number of bound morphemes, CDI: Word and Sentences, SECS

Page | 191

Reference: Nikolopoulos, T. P., O'Donoghue, G. M., & Archbold, S. (1999). Age at implantation: its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope, 109(4), 595-599. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 4 years Sample size: 126 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 4;2 years (1;9–6;10) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception and other auditory skills Speech intelligibility Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Iowa Matrix Closed Set Sentence Test, CDT: number of words per minute correctly identified, CAP, SIR

Page | 192

Reference: Obenchain, P., Menn, L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Can speech development at 36 months in children with hearing loss be predicted from information available in the second year of life? Volta Review, 100(5), 149-180. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 2 years Sample size: 19 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into 4 groups according to their speech skills at 36 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production: prosody and articulation Expressive language: syntax Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Presence or absence of additional disabilities: motor difficulties, cognitive development Speech production Expressive language Measures: Coding of speech samples

Page | 193

Reference: O'Donoghue, G. M., Nikolopoulos, T. P., & Archbold, S. M. (2000). Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation. Lancet, 356(9228), 466-468. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 5 years post-implantation Sample size: 40 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 4;4 years (2;6–7;10); 14 exclusively oral communicators and 26 total communicators (use of sign to any degree) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Cause/nature of hearing loss (congenital versus meningitis) Mode of communication: child‟s usual or preferred Socioeconomic status Implant characteristics: number of inserted electrodes Measures: CDT: number of words per minute correctly identified

Page | 194

Reference: Oh, S.-H., Kim, C.-S., Kang, E. J., Lee, D. S., Lee, H. J., Chang, S. O., et al. (2003). Speech perception after cochlear implantation over a 4-year time period. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 123(2), 148-153. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 4 years Sample size: 29 prelingually deaf children 17 postlingually deaf adults Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 6;0 years (2;3–11;4) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: CID (Korean version)

Page | 195

Reference: Osberger, M. J., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Koch, D. B. (2002). Cochlear implant candidacy and performance trends in children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 62-65. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 6 months post-implantation Sample size: 116 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in months at implantation (12–23, 24–36 and >36) and the mode of communication used in the program attended by the participants (oral or total communication) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Communication mode of program attended by child Measures: IT-MAIS, ESP, PBK, LNT, MLNT

Page | 196

Reference: Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165-189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: Study 1: 135 Study 2: 31 Study 3, concerning modes of reading instruction, is not relevant to this review. Participants: School-aged children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Sign language Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Reading ability Independent variables: Parental hearing status Age at identification of hearing loss Presence or absence of other disabilities Sign language skills Measures: SAT-HI: reading achievement; ASL test battery: verb agreement production, sentence order comprehension tests developed by the authors: ASL sentence imitation task, finger-spelling task, test assessing ability to write the English counterparts of signs

Page | 197

Reference: Peng, S. C., Spencer, L. J., & Tomblin, J. B. (2004). Speech intelligibility of pediatric cochlear implant recipients with 7 years of device experience. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6), 1227-1236. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 24 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 5;1 years (2;7–11;0), mean age at test = 12;4 years (8;4–18;3). All but one of the participants were total communication users. Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Short-Long Sentence Test

Page | 198

Reference: Peng, S. C., Weiss, A. L., Cheung, H., & Lin, Y. S. (2004). Consonant production and language skills in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 592-597. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 30 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 5;8 years (2;3–10;3); age at data collection = 6–12 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech production Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Age at implantation Duration of device use Measures: Author-devised test of consonant production in Mandarin, PPVT (Mandarin version), Chinese test assessing preschool language disorders

Page | 199

Reference: Pipp-Siegel, S., Sedey, A. L., VanLeeuwen, A. M., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Mastery motivation and expressive language in young children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 133-145. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 200 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age = 6–72 months, age at intervention = birth–72 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Social-emotional development: mastery motivation (persistence at moderately difficult or difficult tasks) Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Age at entry to early intervention Maternal educational level Race/ethnicity Socioeconomic status: family income Gender Communication mode of family Measures: Minnesota CDI: Expressive language, DMQ

Page | 200

Reference: Pipp-Siegel, S., Sedey, A. L. &Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2002). Predictors of Parental Stress in Mothers of Young Children with Hearing Loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 1-17. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 184 Participants: Hearing mothers of young children who were deaf or hard of hearing; age = birth -72 months, age at interventions – birth -72 months Intervention/focus: Predictors of Parental Stress in Mothers Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Amount of support Hassles Parental stress Independent variables: Additional disabilities Age Age at identification Race/ethnicity Gender Degree of hearing loss Family income Mode of communication Months between identification of hearing loss and observations Measures: Parental Stress Index/short form, Parenting Daily Hassles Scale, Family Support Scale: Parental Stress Minnesota CDI: Expressive language

Page | 201

Reference: Pisoni, D. B., & Cleary, M. (2003). Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 106S-120S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 176 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; age at implant = <5 years. The participants were part of the sample described in Geers & Brenner (2003). Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility Speech production Independent variables: Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Measures: WISC-III digit span, WIPI, LNT, BKB, McGarr

Page | 202

Reference: Pisoni, D. B., Cleary, M., Geers, A. E., & Tobey, E. A. (1999). Individual differences in effectiveness of cochlear implants in children who are prelingually deaf: new process measures of performance. Volta Review, 101(3), 111-164. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Sample size: 50 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into children who scored in the top 20% of a speech perception test („Stars‟) and children who scored in the bottom 20% („Controls‟). The groups were matched on length of implant use (approximately 2 years). The second part of this paper reports on a study that is more extensively reported in Pisoni & Cleary (2003). Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Variables examined: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language Measures: PBK, Minimal Pairs Test, Common Phrases Test, LNT, MLNT, PPVT-R, RDLS, BIT

Page | 203

Reference: Pittman, A. L., Lewis, D. E., Hoover, B. M., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (2005). Rapid word-learning in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children: effects of age, receptive vocabulary, and high-frequency amplification. Ear and Hearing, 26(6), 619-629. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 97 Participants: 37 children with hearing loss; age = 5–14 years 60 normally hearing children; age = 5–13 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Rapid word learning Receptive language: vocabulary Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Age at fitting of hearing aids Duration of device use Measures: Rapid word learning task, PPVT

Page | 204

Reference: Pizzuto, E., Ardito, B., Caselli, M. C., & Volterra, V. (2001). Cognition and language in Italian deaf preschoolers of deaf and hearing families. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Context, cognition and deafness (pp. 49-70). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 11 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age = 3;11–5;10 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Speech production: articulatory and phonological development, intelligibility Independent variables: Parental hearing status Educational placement Measures: VMI, LIPS, PPVT, Italian test of grammatical comprehension

Page | 205

Reference: Powers, S. (2003). Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream secondary school deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 57-78. Study design: Quantitative Sample survey and educational achievement data collected in two consecutive years Sample size: Sample survey and achievement data were available from approximately 400 students in each year Participants: 16-year old students with hearing loss in mainstream schools Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Academic achievement: examination results Communication competence Social acceptance Independent variables: Socioeconomic status Presence or absence of other disabilities Degree of hearing loss Age at identification of hearing loss Gender Socioeconomic status Parental hearing status Educational placement Race/ethnicity Age at onset of hearing loss Family structure: family size Measures: Secondary school examination results (GCSE, UK), teaching rating of communication competence and social acceptance

Page | 206

Reference: Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlstrom, M. (2002). A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants. Child: Care, Health and Development, 28(5), 403-418. Study design: Qualitative Multiple sources of data Repeated measures over 2 years Sample size: 22 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 1;11–4;10 years Intervention/focus: Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception and production Expressive language Play: level of participation in play and content of play Independent variables: Communicative style of adults with whom the child interacts Opportunity to participate in age-appropriate play Measures: Analysis of direct observations and videorecordings of the children in natural interaction with their parents and siblings and with their teachers and peers in the preschool setting, interviews with parents and teachers

Page | 207

Reference: Preisler, G., Tvingstedt, A. L., & Ahlstrom, M. (2005). Interviews with deaf children about their experiences using cochlear implants. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 260-267 Study design: Qualitative Interviews Cross-sectional Sample size: 11 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age = 8.5–10.5 years and length of use of implant = 5.0–7.5 years Intervention/focus: Cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Communication skills Social-emotional development Language development Family life Quality of life Independent variables:

Page | 208

Reference: Preisler, G. M., & Ahlstrom, M. (1997). Sign language for hard of hearing children - a hindrance or a benefit for their development? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 465-477. Study design: Qualitative Observational: repeated observations over 2 years Sample size: 27 Participants: Children attending sign bilingual preschool programs; age = 2–7 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Sign language Bilingual programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Communication skills Social-emotional development Independent variables: Measures: Coding of children‟s natural interactions at their preschool centre

Page | 209

Reference: Reference 1: Pressman, L. J., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Deas, A. (1999a). Maternal sensitivity predicts language gain in preschool children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(4), 294-304. Reference 2: Pressman, L. J., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Kubicek, L., & Emde, R. N. (1999b). A comparison of the links between emotional availability and language gain in young children with and without hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(5), 251-277. These papers present overlapping and substantially similar data. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 1 year Sample size: Reference 1: 24 dyads Reference 2: 42 dyads Participants: Children with hearing loss and their mothers; age at commencement of study = 21–30 (20-27) months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Independent variables: Maternal characteristics: sensitivity and structuring/intrusiveness Parent-child interaction: child responsiveness and involvement in interaction with parents Degree of hearing loss Measures: Minnesota CDI infant and toddler versions

Page | 210

Reference: Remine, M., Brown, M., Care, E., & Rickards, F. (2003). Cognitive factors associated with variance in language performance in students with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 9, 33-38. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 19 Participants: Adolescents with hearing loss aged 13-16 years divided into two groups based on assessed language ability: typical and delayed Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Nonverbal cognitive ability Other cognitive factors: executive function Measures: WISC, D-KEFS, Tower Test (NEPSY), CELF

Page | 211

Reference: Richmond-Welty, E. D., & Siple, P. (1999). Differentiating the use of gaze in bilingual - bimodal language acquisition: a comparison of two sets of twins with deaf parents. Journal of Child Language, 26(2), 321-338. Study design: Quantitative Case series with post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 2 years Sample size: 4 Participants: 2 monolingual (American Sign Language) twins with hearing loss and 2 bilingual (ASL/English) twins with normal hearing; age at commencement of study = 2 years Intervention/focus: Bilingual (sign/spoken) language development in children with normal hearing. Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Gaze during utterances Independent variables: Measures: Language type (signed or speech), MLU, coding of gaze as to the timing and maintenance of gaze in language interactions between children and others

Page | 212

Reference: Robbins, A. M., Green, J. E., & Waltzman, S. B. (2004). Bilingual oral language proficiency in children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 644-647. Study design: Quantitative Case series with post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 1 year Sample size: 12 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 20 months (6–35); age at test = 17 months–12 years. All of the participants were exclusively oral communicators and all were exposed to a second language, to varying degrees Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Measures: RDLS, OWLS, SOLOM

Page | 213

Reference: Robbins, A. M., Koch, D. B., Osberger, M. J., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2004). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on auditory skill development in infants and toddlers. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 130(5), 570-574. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 1 year Sample size: 216 Participants: 107 children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in months at implantation: 12-17, 19–23 and 24–36 109 normally hearing children aged less than 3 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Duration of device use Measures: IT-MAIS

Page | 214

Reference: Sainz, M., Skarzynski, H., Allum, J. H. J., Helms, J., Rivas, A., Martin, J., et al. (2003). Assessment of auditory skills in 140 cochlear implant children using the EARS protocol. ORL: Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & its Related Specialties, 65(2), 91-96. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over 2 years Sample size: 105 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into equal groups according to age in years at implantation: < 3.0, 3.1–6.0, 6.1–10.0 Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: LiP, MTP

Page | 215

Reference: Sarant, J. Z., Blamey, P. J., Dowell, R. C., Clark, G. M., & Gibson, W. P. R. (2001). Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 22(1), 18-28. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 167 in total; not all participants provided results on each measure Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into two groups according to the type of speech perception results they provided: words (mean age at implantation = 5.3 years) or sentences (mean age at implantation = 5.6 years). Age at implantation for the two groups combined ranged from 1.2 to 15.5 years. Within the groups, participants were classified according to their mode of communication: oral, simultaneous sign and speech, or sign only. The participants were also grouped by the location of the clinic at which they were treated, Sydney or Melbourne. Mean age at data collection = 5 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes in cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Duration of hearing loss prior to implantation Duration of device use Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Cochlear implant centre attended (Sydney versus Melbourne) Implant characteristics: number of inserted electrodes Implant characteristics: processing strategy Measures: BKB, PBK, CNC Reference: Schauwers, K., Gillis, S., Daemers, K., De Beukelaer, C., & Govaerts, P. J. (2004). Cochlear implantation between 5 and 20 months of age: the onset of babbling and the audiologic outcome. Otology & Neurotology, 25(3), 263-270.

Page | 216

Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 1 year post-implantation Sample size: 20 Participants: 10 children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 5–19 months 10 children with normal hearing aged 6–11 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Prelexical vocalisation Auditory skills Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Age at onset of babbling and babbling spurt, CBR, CAP, APE

Page | 217

Reference: Schlumberger, E., Narbona, J., & Manrique, M. (2004). Non-verbal development of children with deafness with and without cochlear implants. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 46(9), 599-606. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 94 Participants: 29 children with hearing loss; all fitted with hearing aids soon after diagnosis (<2 years) 25 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 2;2 years (1;0–3;3) 40 children with normal hearing All of the participants were aged 5 to 9 years at the time of the study Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Non-verbal development e.g. spatial integration, motor control and attention Independent variables: Measures: Variety of motor tasks; protocol consisting of 11 measures of neurological and neuropsychological capacities

Page | 218

Reference: Seung, H., Holmes, A., & Colburn, M. (2005). Twin language development: a case study of a twin with a cochlear implant and a twin with typical hearing. Volta Review, 105(2), 175-188. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 21 months Sample size: 2 Participants: Twin sisters, one with a cochlear implant (age at implantation = 20 months) and the other with normal hearing Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Early communication skills e.g. gestures and pointing Independent variables: Measures: Macarthur CID infant and toddler versions, PPVT, CSBS DP

Page | 219

Reference: Snyder, L. S., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Specific play behaviors and the development of communication in children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100(3), 165-185. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 180 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into four age groups: 8–11, 14–17, 20–23 and 26–30 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Development of play Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Gender Age at identification of hearing loss Presence or absence of other disabilities Degree of hearing loss Play behaviour Measures: PAQ, CDI

Page | 220

Reference: Spencer, P. E., & Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1996). Play, language, and maternal responsiveness: a longitudinal study of deaf and hearing infants. Child Development, 67(6). Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 9 months Sample size: 43 mother-child dyads Participants: 43 children and their mothers divided into groups according to hearing status of mother and child; 28 deaf children: 15 with a hearing mother (Dh), 13 with a deaf mother (Dd) 15 children with normal hearing with a hearing mother (Hh) Age at commencement of study = 9 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Play Expressive Language Independent variables: Parental hearing status Maternal characteristics: responsiveness Measures: Coding of the type, frequency and duration of observed play: manipulative, relational, representational; coding of language: frequency, length (number of signs/words), content; rating scale assessing mother-child interaction

Page | 221

Reference: Spencer, P. E. (2004). Individual differences in language performance after cochlear implantation at one to three years of age: child, family, and linguistic factors. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 9(4), 395-412. Study design: Mixed method Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 13 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 1;11 years (1;1–3;2), age at data collection = 3;11 -7;11 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language Pragmatic language skills: conversational cohesion Independent variables: Nonverbal cognitive ability Duration of device use Age at implantation Presence of other disabilities Parent involvement Measures: LIPS, CNC, LPP, BKB, PPVT, CELF, parent interview Reference:

Page | 222

Spencer, L. J., Gantz, B. J., & Knutson, J. F. (2004). Outcomes and achievement of students who grew up with access to cochlear implants. Laryngoscope, 114(9 I), 1576-1581. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 27 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant aged at least 16 years: mean age at implantation = 6.4 years (2.4–12.7) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Speech production Academic achievement Vocational outcomes Use of device (as an outcome) Independent variables: Use of device Measures: PBK, WIPI, HINT, Short-Long Sentences Test, WRMT, WJ ACH, vocational data, questionnaire on consistency of device use

Page | 223

Reference: Stacey, P. C., Fortnum, H. M., Barton, G. R., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation. Ear and hearing, 27(2), 161-186. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 2858 Participants: 468 children with a cochlear implant 2390 children with a hearing loss without a cochlear implant The participants were grouped by mode of communication used in teaching: spoken language only, British Sign Language alone or in conjunction with another mode, Sign Supported English alone or in conjunction with another mode, Makaton alone or in conjunction with another mode, or other methods. Mean age at data collection = 11.6 years (3.3–20.6) The children with a cochlear implant were also grouped according to age in years at implantation (<5 and ≥5) and duration of use in years of the implant (<2, ≥2 to <4, and ≥4). Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception and other auditory skills Use and production of speech Academic ability and achievement Vocational outcomes Use of device Educational participation and engagement Quality of life Independent variables: Age at data collection Degree of hearing loss Age at onset of hearing loss Gender Presence or absence of additional disabilities Socioeconomic status (represented by parental occupational skill level) Race/ethnicity Parental hearing status

Page | 224

Age at implantation Duration of device use Communication mode of program attended by child Measures: CAP; SIR; parent and teacher ratings of use and production of speech and of academic ability; school attainment levels (key stage attainments); teacher rating of reading age and participation and engagement in education; parent report of quality of life, social development, and ability to independently perform tasks such as shopping and use of a telephone

Page | 225

Reference: Svirsky, M. A., Teoh, S. W., & Neuburger, H. (2004). Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 9(4), 224-233. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 7 years Sample size: 75 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant grouped by age in months at implantation: 16–24, 25–36 and 37–48. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: RDLS, Macarthur CDI, Mr Potato Head Task

Page | 226

Reference: Szagun, G. (2000). The acquisition of grammatical and lexical structures in children with cochlear implants: a developmental psycholinguistic approach. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 5(1), 39-47. Study design: Quantitative Case series with post-test outcomes Repeated measures over 18 months Sample size: 10 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 2;3 years (1;2–3;10). All came from monolingual spoken language environments. Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: syntax, morphology, vocabulary Independent variables: Measures: MLU, acquisition of grammatical morphemes, TTRs

Page | 227

Reference: Szagun, G. (2001). Language acquisition in young German-speaking children with cochlear implants: individual differences and implications for conceptions of a 'sensitive phase'. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 6(5), 288-297. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods ranging from 27 to 36 months Sample size: 44 Participants: 22 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 2;5 years (1;2–3;8), age at start of data collection = 1;8–4.4 years. All came from monolingual spoken language environments. 22 normally hearing children matched by initial language level to the cochlear implant children; age = 16 months at the start of data collection Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: grammar and vocabulary Independent variables: Age at implantation Degree of hearing loss Measures: MLU, NDW (parent report)

Page | 228

Reference: Szagun, G. (2004). Learning by ear: on the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 1-20. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 28 or 36 months Sample size: 15 Participants: 9 children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 2;3 years (1;2–3;10), age at start of data collection = 1;8–4;4 years. All came from monolingual spoken language environments. 6 children with a normal hearing matched by initial language level to the cochlear implant children; age = 16 months at the start of data collection Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language: morphology, syntax Independent variables: Measures: Frequency of use of correct article forms, frequency of errors of case and gender

Page | 229

Reference: Tobey, E. A., Geers, A. E., Brenner, C., Altuna, D., & Gabbert, G. (2003). Factors associated with development of speech production skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing, 24(1 SUPPL.), 36S-45S. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 181 Participants: 8- and 9-year old children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;4 years (1;8–5;4 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Independent variables: Child and family characteristics:




Measures: Percentage correct consonants and vowels, McGarr, parent rating of speech intelligibility, time devoted to repairing communicational breakdown

Page | 230

Reference: Tomblin, J. B., Barker, B. A., Spencer, L. J., Zhang, X., & Gantz, B. J. (2005). The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(4), 853-867. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 50 months Sample size: 29 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 21 months (11–40) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive language Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: Minnesota CDI, PLS

Page | 231

Reference: Truy, E., Lina-Granade, G., Jonas, A. M., Martinon, G., Maison, S., Girard, J., et al. (1998). Comprehension of language in congenitally deaf children with and without cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 45(1), 83-89. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 5 years Sample size: 26 Participants: 13 children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 1;10-6;6 13 children with normal hearing matched by chronological age, follow-up duration and intelligence (development quotient) to the cochlear implant children Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language Independent variables: Measures: French tests of receptive language, ITPA

Page | 232

Reference: Tye-Murray, N., Spencer, L., & Woodworth, G. G. (1995). Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(2), 327-337. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 28 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to their age in years at implantation: 2–5, 5–8 and 8–15. All participants used total communication (simultaneous communication) at the time of implantation. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Expressive language Independent variables: Chronological age at testing Speech perception Measures: Short-Long Sentence Test, story-retell task, Audiovisual Feature Test, parent rating of communication skills, WIPI, Children‟s Vowel Test

Page | 233

Reference: Uhlén, I., Bergmann, B., Hägg, Å., & Eriksson, C. (2006). Tvåspråkighet avseende parallell utveckling av tal- och teckenspråk hos en grupp förskolebarn med CI eller hörapparat [Bilingualism with respect to the parallel development of speech and sign language in children with a cochlear implant or hearing aid].Paper presented at the 19th Congress of the Nordisk Audiologisk Selskap (Scandinavian Audiological Society), Stavanger, Norway, 28-31 May. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over 18 months Sample size: 22 Participants: 10 children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = < 3 years, age at commencement of study = 1;3–5;0 years 12 children with a hearing aid; age at commencement of study = 2;4–5;9 years Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Outcomes of amplification Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive language Independent variables: Measures: RDLS

Page | 234

Reference: Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., et al. (1998). Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44(1), 15-22. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 3 years post-implantation Sample size: 12 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 7.2 years, mean age at first assessment = 7.1 years. The children were divided into groups according to their mode of communication: auditory-oral, cued speech and sign language. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Expressive speech: syntax Independent variables: Measures: Percentage correct words by type, overall rating of language level

Page | 235

Reference: von Hapsburg D, Davis BL (2006): Auditory sensitivity and the prelinguistic vocalizations of early-amplified infants, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49: 4: 809-22. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Sample size: 15 Participants: Fifteen infants with PTAs ranging from 25 dB HL to 120 dB HL in the better hearing ear participated. The infants were grouped according to the PTA in the better hearing ear: normal (PTA=25dB); mild-to-moderately-severe (PTA = 26-70 dB HL); and severe-to-profound (PTA>71 dB HL). All infants with a hearing loss attended oral-aural habilitation sessions at least once a week. Intervention/focus: Relationship between auditory sensitivity and prelinguistic vocalisation patterns in infants during the babbling stage. Dependent variables/outcomes: Prelinguistic vocalisation Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss (PTA) Measures: CBR and percentage of utterances containing canonical syllables; vocalisation types within utterance strings, glottal syllables and canonical syllables; syllable shapes; number of consecutive canonical syllable sequences in an utterance; consonant onset within canonical syllables of CV shape; and consonant place in canonical syllables.

Page | 236

Reference: Wake, M., Hughes, E. K., Poulakis, Z., Collins, C., & Rickards, F. W. (2004). Outcomes of children with mild-profound congenital hearing loss at 7 to 8 years: a population study. Ear and Hearing, 25(1), 1-8. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 87 Participants: 7- and 8-year old children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Outcomes of childhood hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Speech production Social-emotional development: adaptive behaviour; emotional, conduct and other behaviour problems Cognitive development General physical and psychosocial health School functioning Independent variables: Measures: CELF, PPVT, GFTA, VABS, WISC, CHQ, Rutter, PEDS, questionnaire assessing school functioning

Page | 237

Reference: Wake, M., Poulakis, Z., Hughes, E. K., Carey-Sargeant, C., & Rickards, F. W. (2005). Hearing impairment: a population study of age at diagnosis, severity, and language outcomes at 7-8 years. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(3), 238-244. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 87 Participants: 7- and 8-year old children with hearing loss Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Reading ability Independent variables: Degree of hearing loss Age at identification of hearing loss Age at fitting of hearing aids Maternal education Socioeconomic status: paternal occupational prestige Family functioning Measures: CELF, PPVT, WISC (Perceptual Organisation Index), GFTA, RPT1, McMaster Family Assessment Device (General Functioning Scale), teacher rated speech intelligibility

Page | 238

Reference: Wallace, V., Menn, L., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1998). Is babble the gateway to speech for all children? A longitudinal study of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), 121-148. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 9 years Sample size: 20 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into two groups according to their speech abilities at final test: talking and not talking; age at first data collection = ≤13 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Motor development Social-emotional development Independent variables: Prelexical vocalisation Degree of hearing loss Measures: Mean babble level, consonant inventory, PAQ, MCDI

Page | 239

Reference: Wallis, D., Musselman, C., & MacKay, S. (2004). Hearing mothers and their deaf children: the relationship between early, ongoing mode match and subsequent mental health functioning in adolescence. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 9(1), 2-14. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 57 Participants: Adolescents with hearing loss and hearing parents. The participants were divided into 3 groups according to the communication history of child and mother: auditory/oral (use of English by both mother and child since the child‟s early years), sign match (use of sign by both mother and child since the child‟s early years), and sign mismatch (children who used sign in adolescence but not early childhood, or who signed in early childhood but whose mother did not) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Social-emotional development: mental health Independent variables: Communication mode: child and mother Measures: YSR

Page | 240

Reference: Waltzman, S. B., Cohen, N. L., Green, J., & Roland Jr, J. T. (2002). Long-term effects of cochlear implants in children. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 126(5), 505-511. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre-and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over varying periods ranging from 5 to 13 years Sample size: 81 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 4.2 years (1;1–15) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Educational placement Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Independent variables: Measures: ESP, NU-CHIPS, GASP, PBK, Common Phrases Test, BKB,

Page | 241

Reference: Waltzman, S. B., & Roland Jr, J. T. (2005). Cochlear implantation in children younger than 12 months. Pediatrics, 116(4), e487-493. Study design: Quantitative Case series with pre- and post-test outcomes Repeated measures over approximately 6 or 12 months Sample size: 18 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 10 months (6–11) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Auditory skills Speech perception Independent variables: Measures: IT-MAIS, GASP, Common Phrases Test, LNT, MLNT

Page | 242

Reference: Want, S. C., & Gattis, M. (2005). Are "late-signing" deaf children "mindblind"? Understanding goal directedness in imitation. Cognitive Development, 20(2), 159-172. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 68 Participants: 34 children with hearing loss divided into two groups according to age of acquisition of sign language: native signers and later signers; age = 50–95 months 34 normally hearing children; age = 52–94 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Cognitive development: theory of mind (ability to interpret others‟ actions in goal-directed terms) Independent variables: Age at exposure to sign language Measures: Imitation task, Raven‟s Progressive Matrices

Page | 243

Reference: Watkins, S., Pittman, P., & Walden, B. (1998). The Deaf Mentor Experimental Project for young children who are deaf and their families. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 29-34. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Repeated measures over approximately 2 years Sample size: 36 Participants: 18 children with hearing loss taking part in a deaf mentor project for deaf children and their families; mean age at start of project = 27 months 18 children with hearing loss attending oral or total communication (manually coded English) programs matched by hearing loss, age, amount of SKI*HI services received prior to the project and pretest language development to the children taking part in the deaf mentor project Intervention/focus: Bilingual-bicultural programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Parental attitudes to deafness Independent variables: Measures: GAEL-P, PEST, LDS, questionnaire assessing parents‟ attitudes to deafness, Deaf culture and their deaf child

Page | 244

Reference: Watson, L. M., Archbold, S. M., & Nikolopoulos, T. P. (2006). Children's communication mode five years after cochlear implantation: changes over time according to age at implant. Cochlear Implants International, 7(2), 77-91. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Repeated measures over varying periods up to 5 years Sample size: 176 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in years at implantation (<3, 3–5 and >5) and mode of communication (oral or sign, with sign defined as use of sign (BSL or sign supported English) to any degree) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Communication mode: child‟s usual or preferred Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures:

Page | 245

Reference: Willstedt-Svensson, U., Lofqvist, A., Almqvist, B., & Sahlen, B. (2004). Is age at implant the only factor that counts? The influence of working memory on lexical and grammatical development in children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 43(9), 506-515. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 15 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 3;11 years (2;0–6;1), age at testing = 2;2–7;10 Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language: grammar Speech production: phonemes Independent variables: Age at implantation Duration of device use Chronological age at testing Cognitive ability and functioning: working memory Measures: A variety of Swedish language tests of speech perception and language, sentence-completion task assessing complex working memory, non-word repetition task assessing phonological working memory

Page | 246

Reference: Wright, M., Purcell, A., & Reed, V. A. (2002). Cochlear implants and infants: expectations and outcomes. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(5 II), 131-137. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 3 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; mean age at implantation = 13.7 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Communication skills Receptive and expressive language Motor development Independent variables: Measures: CII, DVA, RDLS, VABS

Page | 247

Reference: Wu, C. D., & Brown, P. M. (2004). Parents' and teachers' expectations of auditory-verbal therapy. Volta Review, 104(1), 5-20. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 40 Participants: Parents and teachers of children participating in auditory-verbal programs; mean age of children = 55 months (29–110) Intervention/focus: Outcomes of auditory-verbal programs Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Age at data collection Age of first device fitting Age at identification of hearing loss Age at entry to early intervention Intensity of intervention: duration of early intervention Parental involvement Parental expectations Teacher expectations Measures: Checklist derived from the REEL, measure assessing parents‟ and teachers‟

expectations of auditory-verbal therapy

Page | 248

Reference: Wu, J. L., Lin, C. Y., Yang, H. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2006). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on open-set word recognition in Mandarin speaking deaf children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 70(2), 207-211. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 28 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups based on age in years at implantation: <3 (mean age at implant = 2.2) and >3 (mean age at implant = 5.5 years) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: MLNT (Mandarin version)

Page | 249

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C. and Sedey, A (1999). Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100(5), p181-211. Study design: Quantitative Prospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 147 Participants: Children with hearing loss; age = 14–60 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Expressive language Independent variables: Gender Presence or absence of other disabilities Degree of hearing loss Maternal educational level Race/ethnicity Age at identification of hearing loss Communication mode of child/family/program attended by child Measures: Number of different consonants, vowels, initial blends and final blends; rating of overall speech intelligibility; Minnesota CDI

Page | 250

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2005). Early identification, communication modality, and the development of speech and spoken language skills: patterns and considerations. In P. E. Spencer & M. Marschark (Eds.), Advances in the spoken language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children (pp. 298-327). New York: Oxford University Press. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 3 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 20, 21 and 30 months Intervention/focus: Outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Measures: Macarthur CDI, MCDI, NDW, number of utterances and phonemes, rating of speech intelligibility

Page | 251

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998a). The development of deaf and hard of hearing children identified early through the high-risk registry. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(5), 416-424. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 82 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into two groups according to age of identification of hearing loss: before 6 months, or between 7 and 18 months; mean age at testing = 26 months (19–36) Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Motor development Social development Communicative development (gestures) Speech production: phonemic repertoire Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Degree of hearing loss Measures: Minnesota CDI, Macarthur CDI: Words and Sentences, PAQ, number of different vowels and consonants

Page | 252

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998b). Identification of hearing loss after age 18 months is not early enough. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(5), 380-387. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 40 Participants: Children with hearing loss divided into two groups according to age of identification of hearing loss: before 6 months or after 18 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Motor development Social development Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Measures: Minnesota CDI

Page | 253

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Coulter, D., & Thomson, V. (2001). Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs. Seminars in Neonatology, 6(6), 521-529. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 50 Participants: 25 children born in hospitals with newborn hearing screening programs („Screen‟) 25 children born in hospitals without newborn hearing screening programs („No screen‟), matched to the „Screen‟ group by age, degree of hearing loss and cognitive quotient Significantly higher numbers of „No screen‟ children had their hearing loss identified after age 6 months compared to the „Screen‟ group. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Cognitive development Speech intelligibility and other aspects of speech production Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Measures: Minnesota CDI; Macarthur CDI; number of consonants, vowels and initial blends; rating of overall speech intelligibility

Page | 254

Reference: Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Coulter, D. K., & Mehl, A. L. (1998). Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 102(5), 1161-1171. Study design: Quantitative Retrospective cohort Cross-sectional Sample size: 150 Participants: Children with hearing loss aged 13–36 months divided into two groups according to age of identification of hearing loss: before 6 months or after 6 months Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes for children with hearing loss Dependent variables/outcomes: Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Age at identification of hearing loss Cognitive ability Measures: Macarthur CDI

Page | 255

Reference: Young, G. A., & Killen, D. H. (2002). Receptive and expressive language skills of children with five years of experience using a cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 111(9), 802-810. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 7 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 2;3–6;10 years Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Receptive and expressive language Independent variables: Measures: CELF, BKB, AB Word Lists, PPVT, TOWK

Page | 256

Reference: Zwolan, T. A., Ashbaugh, C. M., Alarfaj, A., Kileny, P. R., Arts, H. A., El-Kashlan, H. K., et al. (2004). Pediatric cochlear implant patient performance as a function of age at implantation. Otology & Neurotology, 25(2), 112-120. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 295 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant divided into groups according to age in years at implantation: 1–3, 3–5, 5–7, 7–9, 9–11 Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Age at implantation Measures: ESP, NU-CHIPS, Minimal Pairs Tests, GASP

Page | 257

Reference: Zwolan, T. A., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., Ashbaugh, C. J., Hieber, S. J., Kileny, P. R., & Telian, S. A. (1997). Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills. Ear and Hearing, 18(3), 240-251. Study design: Quantitative Sample size: 24 Participants: Children with a cochlear implant; age at implantation = 2;7–12;3 years. Twelve children demonstrated no open-set speech perception prior to receive their implant, and 12 demonstrated some open-set speech perception prior to implantation. Intervention/focus: Factors affecting outcomes of cochlear implantation Dependent variables/outcomes: Speech perception Independent variables: Measures: MTS, WIPI, GASP, NU-CHIPS

Page | 258

Appendix Twelve

Complete list of all outcome measures identified in this review

There are multiple versions of many of the measures listed below; no attempt is made to list all of these.

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures APE APE Speech perception: phoneme

discrimination

Arthur Boothroyd Word Lists

AB Word Lists Open-set speech perception: word recognition

Assessment of Children's Language Comprehension

ACLC Receptive language (comprehension of different word classes)

Assessment of Mainstream Performance

AMP-E AMP-K

Child‟s ability to participate in a range of classroom activities and behaviours that are age- and content-appropriate The AMP-E is for elementary and high school students and the AMP-K is for preschool and kindergarten children.

Audiovisual Feature Test Closed-set speech perception: nonsense syllables

Auditory Responsiveness Questionnaire

ARQ Various auditory behaviours e.g. ability to identify sex of speaker, responding to name, speaking on the telephone Parent report measure

Beginner‟s Intelligibility Test

BIT Speech intelligibility

Bench-Kowal-Bamford sentence test

BKB Open-set speech perception: sentences

Bracken Test of Basic Concepts

BBCS Concept development and receptive language in 11 categories e.g. colours, letters, shapes, self/social awareness

British Picture Vocabulary Scale

BPVS Receptive language: vocabulary

Page | 259

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures California Achievement Tests

CAT Academic competency in a variety of areas including reading/language, mathematics, science and social science

Canonical Babbling Ratio CBR Onset of Babbling (Pre-linguistic vocalisation)

Carolina Picture Vocabulary Test

CPVT Receptive sign language: vocabulary

Categories of Auditory Performance

CAP Speech perception, identification and use of everyday sound

Child Behavior Checklist CBCL Behavioural problems, internalising and externalising behaviours Parent/teacher report measure

Child Health Questionnaire CHQ Physical and psychosocial health Parent report measure

Children‟s Audio-Visual Enhancement Test

CAVET Speech perception: the increase in speech perception that results when auditory information is added to lip-reading

Children‟s Communication Checklist

CCC Expressive language (speech, syntax, semantics and coherence) and pragmatics (initiation, scripted language, context and nonverbal communication)

Children‟s Test of Nonword Repetition

CNRep Phonological working memory

Children‟s Vowel Test Speech perception: vowels

CID (Central Institute of the Deaf) everyday sentences test

CID Open-set speech perception: understanding of everyday sentences

CID Phonetic Inventory Speech production: provides a profile of phonetic skills

Page | 260

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals

CELF Receptive and expressive language (composite scores for each). Additional scores cover language structure, language content, language content and memory, and working memory.

Columbia Mental Maturity Scale

CMMS Cognitive ability: general reasoning level

Common Phrases Test Open-set speech perception: sentence comprehension

Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales

CSBS Communication, social-affective and symbolic abilities of children whose functional communication age is 8 months–2 years

Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales: Developmental Profile

CSBS DP Communicative competence (use of eye gaze, gestures, sounds, words, understanding, and play)

Communicative Intention Inventory

CII Early intentional communication

Connected discourse tracking

CDT Speech perception: understanding of connected speech CDT can be used to test either open- or closed-set speech perception.

Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant monosyllabic word test

CNC Open-set speech perception

Consonant-production accuracy

SPEECH Percentage of consonant phonemes produced correctly in response to picture stimuli.

Conversational Act Categories

Pragmatic language development

Coping Scale for Adults

CSA Self-report measure of coping behaviour

Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System

D-KEFS Higher level cognitive functions (e.g. problem solving, concept formation, creativity)

Page | 261

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration

VMI Integration of visual perception and motor behaviour. The test is non-verbal.

Developmental Vocal Assessment

DVA Prelexical vocalisation

Differential Aptitude Tests DAT Ability to learn or succeed in a wide range of areas: verbal reasoning, numerical ability, abstract reasoning, mechanical reasoning, space relations, language usage

Dimensions of Mastery Motivation Questionnaire

DMQ Maternal perception of a child‟s persistence and general competence

E2L toy test E2L Closed-set speech perception

Early Language Inventory ELI Expressive language: vocabulary

Early Speech Perception Test for Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Children

ESP Speech perception: pattern perception and word identification

Evaluation of Auditory Responses to Speech

EARS Open- and closed-set speech perception: test battery consisting of the LiP, MPT, MUSS, GASP, LS, a word test and a sentence test

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test

EOWPVT Expressive language: vocabulary

Expressive Vocabulary Test

Expressive vocabulary

Fisher-Logeman Test of Articulatory Competence

Fisher-Logeman

Speech production: systematically examines all English phonemes according to syllabic function

German language development test

MFED Receptive and expressive oral language skills developmental age

Glendonald Auditory Screening Procedure

GASP Open-set speech perception: ability to understand simple sentences

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation

GFTA Speech production: articulation of common speech sounds, misarticulation

Page | 262

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Grammatical Analysis of Elicited Language-Pre-Sentence Level Grammatical Analysis of Elicited Language – Simple Sentence Level

GAEL-P

GAEL-S

Expressive language: elicits simple and complex sentences through an imitative sentence task and prompted language sample. Developed for children with hearing loss

Hearing in Noise Test HINT Speech perception: ability to repeat sentences in a quiet environment and with competing noise

Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status

Social status

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities

ITPA Auditory and visual reception, receptive and expressive language including speech, writing, reading and spelling

Index of Productive Syntax IPSyn Expressive language: syntactic complexity

Intersubjectivity Index Number of observed moments of intersubjectivity times mean length of moments

Intelligibility Index II Speech intelligibility

Iowa Matrix Closed Set Sentence Test

Closed-set speech perception

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

KABC Cognitive ability (processing, planning, learning and knowledge)

Language Assessment, Remediation, and Screening Procedure

LARSP Syntactic and discourse development

Language Proficiency Profile LPP LPP-PV

Expressive language and communicative skills of children with hearing loss (rating by parent or teacher). The measure is not specific to any modality or language system. The emphasis in several of the subscales is pragmatics (such as conversational turn-taking). The LPP-PV assesses parental communication skills.

Page | 263

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Language-Specific Sentence Test

LS Open-set speech perception

Leiter International Performance Scale

LIPS General intelligence, primarily abstract concepts The test is non-verbal.

Lexical Neighborhood Test Multi-syllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test

LNT MLNT

Open-set speech perception: word recognition The LNT contains monosyllabic words and the MLNT contains longer polysyllabic words.

Ling 6 Sound Test Ling 6 Speech perception: phoneme detection, discrimination and identification

Lipreading Assessment for Children with Hearing Impairment

LACHI Lip reading ability

Listening Progress Profile LiP Auditory discrimination and identification: voices, phonemes, environmental sounds and rhythmic features

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory

Macarthur CDI: Words and Gestures

Macarthur CDI: Words

and Sentences

Receptive and expressive language The Words and Gestures version is for infants and measures comprehension, word production, and symbolic and communicative gesture. The Words and Sentences version is for toddlers and measures word production and early grammar. Parent report measure

McGarr Sentence Intelligibility Test

McGarr Speech intelligibility and articulation

McMaster Family Assessment Device

FAD Self-report measure of emotional relationships and functioning within the family

Meadow-Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Students

M-K Social adjustment, self-image, and emotional adjustment

Mean length of utterance MLU Mean number of morphemes per

Page | 264

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures utterance; measure of expressive language, particularly morphosyntactic ability

Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale

MAIS IT-MAIS

Observable auditory behaviour in everyday situations The IT-MAIS is an adaptation of the MAIS for use with very young children (birth onwards). Parent report measure

Meaningful Use of Speech Scale

MUSS Use of language in everyday situations: voice control, speech production and communication strategy Parent/teacher report measure

Minimal Pairs Test Closed-set speech perception: discrimination of consonants and vowels

Minnesota Child Development Inventory

Minnesota CDI

Measure of children‟s development in 8 areas: expressive language, comprehension - conceptual development, situation comprehension, self help, personal social, gross motor, fine motor, general development

Monosyllabic-Trochee-Polysyllabic Test (subscale of the PLOTT Test)

MTP Closed-set speech perception: identification of words and numbers of syllables

Monosyllable, Trochee, Spondee test (subscale of the PLOTT Test)

MTS Closed-set speech perception: word recognition

Mr Potato Head Task Open-set speech perception: comprehension of words and sentences

National Technical Institute for the Deaf Writing Test

NTID Writing Test

Written language: organisation, content, grammar and vocabulary

Page | 265

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Northwestern University Children's Perception of Speech

NU-CHIPS Closed-set speech perception: word recognition

Number of different words

NDW Number of different words used

Oral and Written Language Scales

OWLS Receptive and expressive language, including semantic, syntactic, pragmatic and supralinguistic (higher order thinking) skills

Parenting Stress Index PSI Stress in the parent-child system as measured by child characteristics (e.g. demandingness) and parent personality and situation (e.g. competence, isolation)

Parents‟ Evaluation of Developmental Status

PEDS

Developmental and behavioural problems in children aged 0 to 8 years

Pattern Elicitation Syntax Test

PEST Assess the child‟s ability to use 44 basic grammatical structures of English

Peabody Individual Achievement Test

PIAT Academic achievement: reading, written expression, spelling, mathematics

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (various versions)

PPVT Receptive single-word vocabulary

Pediatric Speech Intelligibility Test

PSI Speech perception: recognition of words and sentences

Phonetic Level Speech Evaluation and Phonologic Level Speech Evaluation

Speech production: phonetic and phonologic skill level in children with hearing loss

Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten Words test

PBK Open-set speech perception: word and phoneme recognition

Page | 266

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (modified version)

This instrument is comprised of 24 items that prompt children to reveal feelings about their own competence in the domains of cognitive competence, physical competence, socio-emotional competence, school adjustment, and communicative competence.

Play Assessment Questionnaire

PAQ Development of play Parent report measure

PLOTT Test PLOTT Closed-set speech perception

Preschool Delay Task (Gordon Diagnostic System)

Response delay, a cognitive skill important for the accomplishment of goal-oriented behaviours. Response delay requires inhibition of action and prevention of distraction from extraneous stimuli.

Preschool Language Assessment Instrument

PLAI Receptive and expressive language, pragmatics

Preschool Language Scale PLS Broad spectrum of speech and language skills, including receptive and expressive language, articulation, connected speech, voice, fluency and pragmatics

Production of Infants Scale Evaluation questionnaire

PRISE Prelexical vocalisation Parent report measure

Raven‟s Progressive Matrices

Nonverbal cognitive ability: ability to form perceptual relations and to reason by analogy, independent of language and formal schooling

Reading Progress Test 1 RPT1 Reading ability: reading comprehension

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scale

REEL Receptive and expressive language Parent report measure

Renfrew Language Scales: Bus Story Test

Expressive language: story-retelling task

Page | 267

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Revised Rutter Parent Scale for School-Age Children & Revised Rutter Teacher Scale for School-Age Children

Rutter Emotional, conduct and other behavioural difficulties Parent/teacher report measures

Reynell Developmental Language Scales

RDLS Verbal comprehension and expressive language

Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale

RITLS Infant and toddler preverbal and verbal development: interaction-attachment, pragmatics, gesture, play, receptive and expressive language

Scales of Early Communication Skills for Hearing-Impaired Children

SECS Receptive and expressive language Teacher report measure

Schedule of Growing Skills II

SGS II Skills in 10 areas, including hearing, speech, language, motor, visual, social, and self-care

Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk

SIFTER Several areas of classroom performance, including academics, attention, communication and participation

Sense of Coherence questionnaire

SOC Response to stressful situations

Short-Long Sentence Test Speech production: ability to correctly pronounce a series of short and long sentences

SKI*HI Language Development Scale

LDS Receptive and expressive language Parent report measure

Social Competence Questionnaire

Social development: degree of competence in seven areas of social behaviour e.g. egocentrism, unresponsiveness Teacher report measure

Social Support Questionnaire SSQ

Social support

Page | 268

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory

SEAI Social-emotional development of children with hearing loss: sociable, communicative behaviours,; dominating behaviours; anxious, compulsive behaviours; developmental lags

Speech Intelligibility Rating SIR Speech intelligibility

Split-Screen Preferential Looking Procedure

SPLP Bimodal (audiovisual) speech perception

Stanford Achievement Test Stanford Achievement Test-Hearing Impaired

SAT SAT-HI

Academic knowledge of primary and secondary school students in 8 areas: word study skills, reading skills/comprehension, vocabulary, mathematics, language, spelling, social studies/science, listening The SAT-HI is specifically for children with hearing loss.

Stark Assessment of Early Vocal Development

SAEVD Speech production – 6 levels of vocalisations e.g. control of articulation, canonical syllables

Story-retell tasks Speech production and/or expressive language

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

SDQ Behaviour: emotional symptoms; problems of conduct, hyperactivity/inattention and peer relationships; prosocial behaviour

Student Oral Language Observation Matrix

SOLOM Receptive and expressive language skills in a second language: comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, grammar and pronunciation

Test Battery for American Sign Language Morphology and Syntax

ASL test battery

Knowledge and use of specific morphological and syntactic structures in ASL The test battery consists of 12 comprehension and production measures e.g. narrative production, noun-verb comprehension.

Page | 269

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Test for Reception of Grammar

TROG Receptive language: grammar

Test of Auditory Comprehension

TAC Speech perception: ranging from simple auditory discrimination to comprehension of complex stories

Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-Revised

TACL-R Receptive language: word classes and relations, grammatical morphemes, elaborated sentences (complex sentence constructions)

Test of Early Reading Ability – Deaf/Hard of Hearing

TERA-D Reading ability: ability to attribute meaning to printed symbols, knowledge of the alphabet, understanding of the conventions of print

Test of Word Knowledge TOWK Receptive and expressive vocabulary

Tower Test (NEPSY) Executive functions of planning, monitoring, self-regulation, and problem solving

Type-token ratios TTRs Expressive language: lexical diversity – ratio of the number of different words produced to the total number of words produced

Video Game Test of Speech Pattern Contrast Perception

VIDSPAC Closed-set speech perception: discrimination of specific phoneme contrasts

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales

VABS Personal and social sufficiency in four domains: communication, daily living skills, socialisation, motor skills

Vowel Perception Test Speech perception

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

WISC Intelligence (verbal and performance IQ)

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence

WPPSI-R Intelligence of children aged 3;0 to 7;3

Page | 270

Instrument Abbreviation What it measures Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised

WRMT Reading ability

Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery

WJ Cognitive ability, scholastic aptitude and academic achievement

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement

WJ ACH Academic achievement; part of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery

Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification

WIPI Closed-set speech perception

Youth Self Report YSR Child and adolescent psychopathology

Page | 271

VOLUME II REFERENCE LIST

Allum, JH, Greisiger, R, Straubhaar, S & Carpenter, MG 2000, „Auditory perception and speech identification in children with cochlear implants tested with the EARS protocol‟, British Journal of Audiology, vol.34, pp. 293-303. Andrews, JF, Ferguson, C, Roberts, S & Hodges, P 1997, „What's up, Billy Jo? Deaf children and bilingual-bicultural instruction in east-central Texas‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 142, no.1, pp.16-25. Apuzzo, ML & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 1995, „Early identification of infants with significant hearing loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory‟, Seminars in Hearing, vol.16, no.2, pp. 124-139. Archbold, SM, Nikolopoulos, TP, Tait, M, O'Donoghue, GM, Lutman, ME & Gregory, S 2000, „Approach to communication, speech perception and intelligibility after paediatric cochlear implantation‟, British Journal of Audiology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 257-264. Archbold, S, Nikolopoulos, TP, O'Donoghue, GM & Lutman, ME 1998, „Educational placement of deaf children following cochlear implantation‟, British Journal of Audiology, vol. 32, no.5, pp. 295-300. Archbold, S, O'Donoghue, G & Nikolopoulos, T 1998, „Cochlear implants in children: an analysis of use over a three-year period‟, American Journal of Otology, vol.19, no. 3, pp. 328-331. Barker, BA & Tomblin, JB 2004, „Bimodal speech perception in infant hearing aid and cochlear implant users‟, Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, vol.130, no.5, pp. 582-586. Bat-Chava, Y, Martin, D & Kosciw, JG 2005, „Longitudinal improvements in communication and socialization of deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids: evidence from parental reports‟, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, vol.46, no. 12, pp. 1287-1296. Baumgartner, WD, Pok, SM, Egelierler, B, Franz, P, Gstoettner, W & Hamzavi, J 2002, „The role of age in pediatric cochlear implantation‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 223-228. Beadle, EAR, McKinley, DJ, Nikolopoulos, TP, Brough, J, O'Donoghue, GM & Archbold, SM 2005, „Long-term functional outcomes and academic-occupational status in implanted children after 10 to 14 years of cochlear implant use‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1152-1160. Blamey, P, Barry, J, Bow, C, Sarant, J, Paatsch, L & Wales, R 2001, „The development of speech production following cochlear implantation‟, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 363-382.

Page | 272

Blamey, PJ, Sarant, JZ, Paatsch, LE, Barry, JG, Bow, CP, Wales, RJ, Wright, M, Psarros, C, Rattigan, K & Tooher, R 2001, „Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 264-285. Bogaerde, B & Van Den Baker, AE 2002, „Are young deaf children bilingual?‟,

(eds) Morgan, G & Woll, W, Directions in sign language acquisition, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 183-206. Bollard, PM, Chute, PM, Popp, A & Parisier, SC 1999, „Specific language growth in young children using the Clarion cochlear implant‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol.177(S), pp. 119-123. Bornstein, MH, Selmi, AM, Haynes, OM, Painter, KM & Marx, ES 1999, „Representational abilities and the hearing status of child/mother dyads‟, Child Development, vol.70, no. 4, pp. 833-852. Boudreault, P & Mayberry, RI 2006, „Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure‟, Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 608-635. Brackett, D & Zara, CV 1998, „Communication outcomes related to early implantation‟, American Journal of Otology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 453-460. Burkholder, RA & Pisoni, DB 2003, „Speech timing and working memory in profoundly deaf children after cochlear implantation‟, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol.85, no. 1, pp. 63-88. Calderon, R 2000, „Parental involvement in deaf children's education programs as a predictor of child's language, early reading, and social-emotional development‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 5:, no. 2, pp. 140-155. Calderon, R & Low, S 1998, „Early social-emotional, language, and academic development in children with hearing loss: families with and without fathers,‟

American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 225-234. Calderon, R & Naidu, S 1998, „Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss‟, Volta Review, vol.100, no. 5, pp. 53-84. Chin, SB, Tsai, PL & Gao, S 2003, „Connected speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing‟, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 440-451. Christiansen, JB & Leigh, IW 2004, „Children with cochlear implants: changing parent and deaf community perspectives‟, Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 673-677.

Page | 273

Cleary, M, Pisoni, DB & Geers, AE 2001, „Some measures of verbal and spatial working memory in eight- and nine-year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 22, no.5, pp. 395-411. Cleary, M, Pisoni, DB & Kirk, KI 2002, „Working memory spans as predictors of spoken word recognition and receptive vocabulary in children with cochlear implants‟, Volta Review, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 259-280. Colletti, V, Carner, M, Miorelli, V, Guida, M, Colletti, L & Fiorino, FG 2005, „Cochlear implantation at under 12 months report on 10 patients‟, Laryngoscope, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 445-449. Connor, CM 2006, „Examining the communication skills of a young cochlear implant pioneer‟, Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 449-460. Connor, CM, Craig, HK, Raudenbush, SW, Heavner, K & Zwolan, TA 2006, „The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation?‟,

Ear & Hearing, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 628-644. Connor, CM & Zwolan, TA 2004, „Examining multiple sources of influence on the reading comprehensive skills of children who use cochlear implants‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 509-526. Damen, GW, Van Den Oever-Goltstein, MH, Langereis, MC, Chute, PM & Mylanus, EA, 2006, „Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol.115, no.7, pp. 542-552. Dettman, SJ, Fiket, H, Dowell, RC, Charlton, M, Williams, SS, Tomov, AM & Barker, EJ 2004, „Speech perception results for children using cochlear implants who have additional special needs‟, Volta Review, vol.104, no. 4, pp. 361-392. Dillon, CM, Burkholder, RA, Cleary, M & Pisoni, DB 2004, „Nonword repetition by children with cochlear implants: accuracy ratings from normal-hearing listeners‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1103-1116. Dodd, B, McIntosh, B & Woodhouse, L 1998, „Early lipreading ability and speech and language development of hearing-impaired pre-schoolers‟, (eds) Campbell, R, Dodd, B & Burnham D, Hearing by eye II: advances in the psychology of speechreading and auditory-visual speech, Psychology Press, Hove, East Sussex, pp. 229-242. Dornan, D, Hickson, L, Murdoch, B & Houston T 2006, „Rate of progress in listening, language and speech development for children in an auditory-verbal program‟, paper presented at the Queensland Department of Health Healthy Hearing Symposium, Brisbane, 29-30 November.

Page | 274

Dornan, D, Hickson, L, Murdoch, B & Houston, T (in press), „Outcomes of an auditory-verbal program for children with hearing loss: a comparative study with a matched group of children with normal hearing‟, Volta Review. Dowell, RC, Dettman, SJ, Blamey, PJ, Barker, EJ & Clark, GM 2002, „Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol.3, no. 1, pp. 1-18. Duncan, J 1999, „Conversational skills of children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing in an integrated setting‟, Volta Review, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 193-211. Easterbrooks, SR & O'Rourke, CM 2001, „Gender differences in response to auditory-verbal intervention in children who are deaf or hard of hearing‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 146, no. 4, pp. 309-319. Easterbrooks, SR, O'Rourke, CM & Todd, TW 2000, „Child and family factors associated with deaf children's success in auditory-verbal therapy‟. American Journal of Otology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 341-344. Edwards, LC, Frost, R & Witham, F 2006, „Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: implications for candidacy‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 1593-1600. Ertmer, DJ 2001, „Emergence of a vowel system in a young cochlear implant recipient‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 803. Ertmer, DJ, Leonard, JS & Pachuilo, ML 2002, „Communication intervention for children with cochlear implants: two case studies‟, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 205-217. Ertmer, DJ & Mellon, JA 2001, „Beginning to talk at 20 months: early vocal development in a young cochlear implant recipient‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 192-206.

Ertmer, DJ, Strong, LM & Sadagopan, N 2003, „Beginning to communicate after cochlear implantation: oral language development in a young child‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 328-340. Ertmer, DJ, Young, N, Grohne, K, Mellon, JA, Johnson, C, Corbett, K & Saindon, K 2002, „Vocal development in young children with Cochlear implants: Profiles and implications for interventions‟, Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, vol. 33, no.3.

Fabbretti, D,Volterra, V & Pontecorvo, C 1998, „Written language abilities in deaf Italians‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 231-244.

Page | 275

Flipsen, P & Colvard, LG 2006, „Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants‟, Journal of Communication Disorders, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 93-108.

Fortnum, HM, Stacey, PC & Summerfield, AQ 2006, „An exploration of demographic bias in a questionnaire survey of hearing-impaired children: Implications for comparisons of children with and without cochlear implants‟,

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 2054.

Fryauf-Bertschy, H, Tyler, RS, Kelsay, DM & Gantz, BJ 1997, „Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 40, no.1, pp. 183-199.

Geers, AE 2003, „Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no. 1, SUPPL: 59S-68S.

Geers, AE 2004, „Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation‟, Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no.5, pp. 634-638.

Geers, AE & Brenner, C 2003, „Background and educational characteristics of prelingually deaf children implanted by five years of age‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no.1, SUPPL: 2S-14S.

Geers, A, Brenner, C & Davidson, L 2003, „Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no.1 SUPPL: 24S-35S.

Geers, AE, Nicholas, JG & Sedey, AL 2003, „Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no. 1, SUPPL: 46S-58S.

Geers, A, Spehar, B & Sedey, A 2002, „Use of speech by children from total communication programs who wear cochlear implants‟, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 50-58.

Gordon, KA, Twitchell, KA, Papsin, BC & Harrison, RV 2001, „Effect of residual hearing prior to cochlear implantation on speech perception in children‟, Journal of Otolaryngology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 216-223.

Harrison, RV, Gordon, KA & Mount RJ 2005, „Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation‟, Developmental Psychobiology, vol. 46, no. 3, pp.252-261.

Hassanzadeh, S, Farhadi, M, Daneshi, A & Emamdjomeh, H 2002, „The effects of age on auditory speech perception development in cochlear-implanted prelingually deaf children‟, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 126, no. 5, pp.524-527.

Page | 276

Hehar, SS, Nikolopoulos, TP, Gibbin, KP & O'Donoghue, GM 2002, „Surgery and functional outcomes in deaf children receiving cochlear implants before age 2 years‟, Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 11-14.

Helfand, M, Thompson, DCM, Davis, R, McPhillips, H, Homer, CJ & Lieu, TL 2001, „Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review Evidence Number 5’, Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

Hintermair, M 2006, „Parental resources, parental stress, and socioemotional development of deaf and hard of hearing children‟, Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 493-513.

Hodges, AV, Dolan, AM, Balkany, TJ, Schloffman, JJ & Butts, SL 1999, „Speech perception results in children with cochlear implants: contributing factors‟, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 31-34.

Holt, RF & Kirk, KI 2005, „Speech and language development in cognitively delayed children with cochlear implants‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 132-48.

Horn, DL, Davis, RAO, Pisoni, DB & Miyamoto, RT 2005, „Behavioral inhibition and clinical outcomes in children with cochlear implants, Laryngoscope, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 595-600.

Horn, DL, Pisoni, DB & Miyamoto, RT 2006, „Divergence of fine and gross motor skills in prelingually deaf children: Implications for cochlear implantation‟,

Laryngoscope, vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 1500-1506.

Houston, DM, Carter, AK, Pisoni, DB, Kirk, K & Ying, EA 2005, „Word learning in children following cochlear implantation‟, Volta Review, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 41-72.

Houston, DM, Pisoni, DB, Kirk, KI, Ying, EA & Miyamoto, RT 2003, „Speech perception skills of deaf infants following cochlear implantation: a first report‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 479-95.

Houston, DM, Ying, EA, Pisoni, DB & Kirk, KI 2001, „Development of pre- word-learning skills in infants with cochlear implants‟, Volta Review, vol. 103, no.4, pp. 303-326. James, D, Rajput, K, Brown, T, Sirimanna, T, Brinton, J & Goswami, U 2005, „Phonological awareness in deaf children who use cochlear implants‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1511-1528.

Kane, MO, Schopmeyer, B, Mellon, NK, Wang, NY & Niparko, JK 2004, „Prelinguistic communication and subsequent language acquisition in children with cochlear implants‟, Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 619-623.

Page | 277

Kennedy, CR, McCann, DC, Campbell, MJ, Law, CM, Mullee, M, Petrou, S, Watkin, P, Worsfold, S, Yuen, HM & Stevenson, J 2006, „Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment‟, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 354, no.20, pp. 2131-2141.

Kiese-Himmel, C & Reeh, M 2006, „Assessment of expressive vocabulary outcomes in hearing-impaired children with hearing aids: do bilaterally hearing-impaired children catch up?‟, Journal of Laryngology and Otology, vol. 120, no. 8, pp. 619-626.

Kiese-Himmel, C, Schroff, J & Kruse, E 1997, „Identification and diagnostic evaluation of hearing impairments in early childhood in German-speaking infants‟, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 254, no. 3, pp. 133-139.

Kirk, KI, Miyamoto, RT, Ying, EA, Perdew, AE & Zuganelis, H 2000, „Cochlear implantation in young children: effects of age at implantation and communication mode‟, Volta Review, vol. 102, no.4, pp.127-144.

Kishon-Rabin, L, Taitelbaum-Swead, R, Ezrati-Vinacour, R & Hildesheimer, M 2005, „Prelexical vocalization in normal hearing and hearing-impaired infants before and after cochlear implantation and its relation to early auditory skills‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 26, no. 4, SUPPL: 17S-29S.

Lederberg, AR & Everhart, VS 1998, „Communication between deaf children and their hearing mothers: the role of language, gesture, and vocalization‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 887-899.

Lederberg, AR & Everhart, VS 2000, „Conversations between deaf children and their hearing mothers: pragmatic and dialogic characteristics‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 303-322.

Leybaert, J & Lechat, J 2001, „Variability in deaf children's spelling: the effect of language experience‟, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 554-562.

Lichtenstein, EH 1998, „The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol.3, no. 2, pp. 80-134. Loots, G, Devise, I & Jacquet, W 2005, „The impact of visual communication on the intersubjective development of early parent-child interaction with 18- to 24-month-old deaf toddlers‟, Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, vol. 10, no.4, pp. 357-375.

Magnuson, M 2000, „Infants with congenital deafness: on the importance of early sign language acquisition‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 6-14.

Page | 278

Manrique, M, Cervera-Paz, FJ, Huarte, A & Molina, M 2004, „Prospective long-term auditory results of cochlear implantation in prelinguistically deafened children: the importance of early implantation‟, Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Supplementum, no. 552, pp. 55-63.

Marino, E, Furlonger, BE, Frydenberg, E & Poole, C 2003, „The relationship between parent coping strategies, social-emotional development and language functioning of hearing-impaired children‟, Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, no. 9, pp. 11-18.

Martineau, G, Lamarche, P, Marcoux, S & Bernard, P 2001, „The effect of early intervention on academic achievement of hearing-impaired children‟, Early Education and Development, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 275-289.

Marttila, TI & Karikoski, JO 2006, „Hearing aid use in Finnish children--impact of hearing loss variables and detection delay‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 475-480.

Mayberry, RI & Lock, E 2003, „Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesist‟, Brain and Language, no. 8, pp. 369-384.

Mayne, AM, Yoshinaga-Itano, C & Sedey, AL 1998, „ Receptive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 29-52.

Mayne, AM, Yoshinaga-Itano, C, Sedey, AL & Carey, A 1998, „Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 1-28.

McCaffrey, HA, Davis, BL, MacNeilage, PF & Von Hapsburg, D 1999, „Multichannel cochlear implantation and the organization of early speech‟, Volta Review, vol. 101, no.1, pp. 5-29.

Meadow-Orlans, KP 1997, „Effects of mother and infant hearing status on interactions at twelve and eighteen months‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 26-36.

Meyer, TA, Svirsky, MA, Kirk, KI & Miyamoto, RT 1998, „Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 846-858.

Moeller, MP 2000, „Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing‟, Pediatrics, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. E43.

Moeller, MP, Donaghy, KF, Beauchaine, KL, Lewis, DE & Stelmachowicz, PG 1996, „Longitudinal study of FM system use in nonacademic settings: effects on language development‟, Ear and Hearing, vol.17, no. 1, pp. 28-41.

Page | 279

Moeller, MP & Schick, B 2006, „Relations between maternal input and theory of mind understanding in deaf children‟, Child Development, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 751-766.

Musselman, C & Kircaali-Iftar, G 1996, „The development of spoken language in deaf children: explaining the unexplained variance‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 108-121.

Nicholas, JG & Geers, AE 1997, „Communication of oral deaf and normally hearing children at 36 months of age‟, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 40, no.6, pp.1314-1327.

Nicholas, JG & Geers, AE 2003a, „Hearing status, language modality, and young children's communicative and linguistic behavior‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol.8, no.4, pp. 422-37.

Nicholas, JG, Geers, AE 2003b, „Personal, social, and family adjustment in school-aged children with a cochlear implant‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no.1, SUPPL: 69S-81S.

Nicholas, JG & Geers, AE 2006, „Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of age‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 27, no.3, pp. 286-298. Nikolopoulos, T P, O'Donoghue, G M, & Archbold, S 1999. “Age at implantation: Its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation”. Laryngoscope, vol. 109, no.4, pp. 595-599.

Obenchain, P, Menn, L & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 1998, „Can speech development at 36 months in children with hearing loss be predicted from information available in the second year of life?‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no.5, pp. 149-80.

O'Donoghue, GM, Nikolopoulos, TP & Archbold, SM 2000, „Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation‟, Lancet, vol. 356, no. 9228, pp. 466-468.

Oh, S, Kim, C, Kang, EJ, Lee, D, Lee, H, Chang, S, Ahn, S, Hwang, C, Prk, H & Koo, J 2003, „Speech perception after cochlear implantation over a 4-year time period‟, Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 148-53.

Osberger, MJ, Zimmerman-Phillips, S & Koch, DB 2002, „Cochlear implant candidacy and performance trends in children‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 5 II, pp. 62-65.

Padden, C & Ramsey, C, Chamberlain, C (ed), Morford JP (ed) & Mayberry RI (ed) 2000, „American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children‟, Language acquisition by eye, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 165-189.

Page | 280

Peng, SC, Spencer, LJ & Tomblin, JB 2004, „Speech intelligibility of pediatric cochlear implant recipients with 7 years of device experience‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1227-1236.

Peng, SC, Weiss, AL, Cheung, H & Lin, YS 2004, „Consonant production and language skills in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants‟, Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 592-597. Pipp-Siegel, S, Sedey, AL, VanLeeuwen, AM & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 2003, „Mastery motivation and expressive language in young children with hearing loss‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 133-145.

Pipp-Siegel, S, Sedey, AL, & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 2002, „Predictors of Parental Stress in Mothers of Young Children With Hearing Loss‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-17.

Pisoni, DB & Cleary, M 2003, „Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no. 1, SUPPL: 106S-120S.

Pisoni, DB, Cleary, M, Geers, AE & Tobey, EA 1999, „Individual differences in effectiveness of cochlear implants in children who are prelingually deaf: new process measures of performance‟, Volta Review, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 111-164.

Pittman, AL, Lewis, DE, Hoover, BM & Stelmachowicz, PG 2005, „Rapid word-learning in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children: effects of age, receptive vocabulary, and high-frequency amplification‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 26, no.6, pp. 619-629.

Pizzuto, E, Ardito, B, Caselli, MC & Volterra V 2001, „Cognition and language in Italian deaf preschoolers of deaf and hearing families‟, (eds) Clark MD, Marschark M & Karchmer M, Context, cognition and deafness, Gallaudet University Press, Washington, D.C, pp. 49-70.

Powers, S 2003, „Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream secondary school deaf students‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 57-78.

Preisler, GM & Ahlstrom, M 1997, „Sign language for hard of hearing children - a hindrance or a benefit for their development?‟, European Journal of Psychology of Education, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 465-477.

Preisler, G, Tvingstedt, AL & Ahlstrom, M 2002, „A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants‟, Child: Care, Health and Development, vol. 28, no.5, pp. 403-418.

Preisler, G, Tvingstedt, AL & Ahlstrom, M 2005, „Interviews with deaf children about their experiences using cochlear implants‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 150, no. 3, pp. 260-267.

Page | 281

Pressman, LJ, Pipp-Siegel, S, Yoshinaga-Itano, C & Deas, A 1999a, „Maternal sensitivity predicts language gain in preschool children who are deaf and hard of hearing‟, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 294-304.

Pressman, LJ, Pipp-Siegel, S, Yoshinaga-Itano,C, Kubicek, L & Emde, RN 1999b, „A comparison of the links between emotional availability and language gain in young children with and without hearing loss‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 251-277.

Remine, M, Brown, M, Care, E & Rickards, F 2003, „Cognitive factors associated with variance in language performance in students with severe-to-profound hearing loss‟, Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, no. 9, pp. 33-38.

Richmond-Welty, ED & Siple, P 1999, „Differentiating the use of gaze in bilingual - bimodal language acquisition: a comparison of two sets of twins with deaf parents‟, Journal of Child Language, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 321-338.

Robbins, AM, Green, JE & Waltzman, SB 2004, „Bilingual oral language proficiency in children with cochlear implants‟, Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 644-647.

Robbins, AM, Koch, DB, Osberger, MJ, Zimmerman-Phillips, S & Kishon-Rabin, L 2004, „Effect of age at cochlear implantation on auditory skill development in infants and toddlers‟, Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, vol.130, no.5, pp. 570-574.

Sainz, M, Skarzynski, H, Allum, JHJ, Helms, J, Rivas, A, Martin, J, Zorowka, PG, Phillips, L, Delauney, J, Brockmeyer, SJ, Kompis, M, Korolewa, I, Albegger, K, Zwirner, P, Van De Heyning, P, D'Haese, P & Med, EL 2003, „Assessment of auditory skills in 140 cochlear implant children using the EARS protocol‟,

Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & its Related Specialties, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 91-96.

Sarant, JZ, Blamey, PJ, Dowell, RC, Clark, GM & Gibson, WPR 2001, „Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 18-28.

Schauwers, K, Gillis, S, Daemers, K, De Beukelaer, C & Govaerts, PJ 2004, „Cochlear implantation between 5 and 20 months of age: the onset of babbling and the audiologic outcome‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 263-270.

Schlumberger, E, Narbona, J & Manrique, M 2004, „Non-verbal development of children with deafness with and without cochlear implants‟, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, vol. 46, no.9, pp. 99-606.

Seung, H, Holmes, A & Colburn, M 2005, „Twin language development: a case study of a twin with a cochlear implant and a twin with typical hearing‟, Volta Review, vol. 105, no.2, pp. 175-188.

Page | 282

Snyder, LS & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 1998, „Specific play behaviors and the development of communication in children with hearing loss‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 165-85.

Spencer, PE 2004, „Individual differences in language performance after cochlear implantation at one to three years of age: child, family, and linguistic factors‟, Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 395-412.

Spencer, LJ, Gantz & BJ, Knutson, JF 2004, „Outcomes and achievement of students who grew up with access to cochlear implants‟, Laryngoscope, vol.114, no.9I, pp. 1576-1581.

Spencer, PE & Meadow-Orlans, KP 1996, „Play, language, and maternal responsiveness: a longitudinal study of deaf and hearing infants‟, Child Development, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3176-3191. Stacey, PC, Fortnum, HM, Barton, GR & Summerfield, AQ 2006, „Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation‟, Ear and hearing, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 161-186.

Svirsky, MA, Teoh, SW & Neuburger, H 2004, „Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation, Audiology and Neuro-Otology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 224-233.

Szagun, G 2000, „The acquisition of grammatical and lexical structures in children with cochlear implants: a developmental psycholinguistic approach‟, Audiology & Neuro-Otology, vol 5, no.1, pp. 39-47.

Szagun, G 2001, „Language acquisition in young German-speaking children with cochlear implants: individual differences and implications for conceptions of a 'sensitive phase'‟, Audiology & Neuro-Otology, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 288-297.

Szagun, G 2004, „Learning by ear: on the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants‟,

Journal of Child Language, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-20.

Tobey, EA, Geers, AE, Brenner, C, Altuna, D & Gabbert, G 2003, „Factors associated with development of speech production skills in children implanted by age five‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 24, no. 1, SUPPL: 36S-45S.

Tomblin, JB, Barker, BA, Spencer, LJ, Zhang, X & Gantz, BJ 2005, „The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 853-867.

Truy, E, Lina-Granade, G, Jonas, AM, Martinon, G, Maison, S, Girard, J, Porot, M & Morgon, A 1998, „Comprehension of language in congenitally deaf children with and without cochlear implants‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 45, no.1, pp. 83-9.

Page | 283

Tye-Murray, N, Spencer, L & Woodworth, GG 1995, „Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience‟, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 327-337.

Uhlén, I, Bergman, B, Hägg, A & Eriksson, C 2006, „Bilingualism with respect to the early simultaneous acquisition of spoken and signed language in deaf and hard of hearing children‟, paper presented at the 19th Congress of the Nordisk Audiologisk Selskap (Scandinavian Audiological Society), Stavanger.

Vieu, A, Mondain, M, Blanchard, K, Sillon, M, Reuillard-Artieres, F, Tobey, E, Uziel A, & Piron, JP 1998, „Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 44, no.1, pp. 15-22.

Von Hapsburg, D & Davis, BL 2006, „Auditory sensitivity and the prelinguistic vocalizations of early-amplified infants‟, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 809-822.

Wake, M, Hughes, EK, Poulakis, Z, Collins, C & Rickards, FW 2004, „Outcomes of children with mild-profound congenital hearing loss at 7 to 8 years: a population study‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-8.

Wake, M, Poulakis, Z, Hughes, EK, Carey-Sargeant, C & Rickards, FW 2005, „Hearing impairment: a population study of age at diagnosis, severity, and language outcomes at 7-8 years‟, Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 238-244.

Wallace, V, Menn, L & Yoshinaga-Itano, C 1998, „Is babble the gateway to speech for all children? A longitudinal study of children who are deaf or hard of hearing‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 121-148.

Wallis, D, Musselman, C, MacKay, S 2004, „Hearing mothers and their deaf children: the relationship between early, ongoing mode match and subsequent mental health functioning in adolescence‟, Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 2-14.

Waltzman, SB, Cohen, NL, Green, J & Roland Jr, JT 2002, „Long-term effects of cochlear implants in children‟, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 505-511.

Waltzman, SB & Roland, Jr. JT 2005, „Cochlear implantation in children younger than 12 months‟, Pediatrics, vol. 116, no. 4, pp.487-493.

Want, SC & Gattis, M 2005, „Are "late-signing" deaf children "mindblind"? Understanding goal directedness in imitation‟, Cognitive Development, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 159-172.

Page | 284

Watkins, S, Pittman, P & Walden, B 1998, „The Deaf Mentor Experimental Project for young children who are deaf and their families‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 29-34.

Watson, LM, Archbold, SM & Nikolopoulos, TP 2006, „Children's communication mode five years after cochlear implantation: changes over time according to age at implant‟, Cochlear Implants International, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 77-91.

Willstedt-Svensson, U, Lofqvist, A, Almqvist, B & Sahlen, B 2004, „Is age at implant the only factor that counts? The influence of working memory on lexical and grammatical development in children with cochlear implants‟, International Journal of Audiology, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 506-515.

Wright, M, Purcell, A & Reed, VA 2002, „Cochlear implants and infants: expectations and outcomes‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 5 II, pp. 131-137.

Wu, CD & Brown, PM 2004, „Parents' and teachers' expectations of auditory-verbal therapy‟, Volta Review, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 5-20.

Wu, JL, Lin, CY, Yang, HM & Lin, YH 2006, „Effect of age at cochlear implantation on open-set word recognition in Mandarin speaking deaf children‟, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 207-11.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C 2005, „Early identification, communication modality, and the development of speech and spoken language skills: patterns and considerations‟, (eds) Spencer, PE & Marschark, M, Advances in the spoken language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298-327.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C & Apuzzo, ML 1998a, „The development of deaf and hard of hearing children identified early through the high-risk registry‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 143: no. 5, pp. 416-424.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C & Apuzzo, ML 1998b, „Identification of hearing loss after age 18 months is not early enough‟, American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 380-7.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C, Coulter, D & Thomson, V 2001, „Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs‟, Seminars in Neonatology, vol. 6, no.6, pp. 521-529. Yoshinaga-Itano, C and Sedey, A 1999, „Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Inter-relationships with Language and Hearing ‟, Volta Review, vol. 100, no. 5.

Page | 285

Yoshinaga-Itano, C, Sedey, AL, Coulter, DK & Mehl, AL 1998, „Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss‟, Pediatrics, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 1161-1171.

Young, GA & Killen, DH 2002, „Receptive and expressive language skills of children with five years of experience using a cochlear implant‟, Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 802-10.

Zwolan, TA, Ashbaugh, CM, Alarfaj, A, Kileny, PR, Arts, HA, El-Kashlan, HK & Telian, SA 2004, „Pediatric cochlear implant patient performance as a function of age at implantation‟, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 112-120.

Zwolan, TA, Zimmerman-Phillips, S, Ashbaugh, CJ, Hieber, SJ, Kileny, PR & Telian, SA 1997, „Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills‟, Ear and Hearing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 240-251.

a systematic review of the literature on...page | 3 appendix one critical appraisal form for...

Documents