China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Management of the Hearing Impaired Child
Published in John C Watkinson, Raymond W Clarke, Christopher P Aldren, Doris-Eva Bamiou, Raymond W Clarke, Richard M Irving, Haytham Kubba, Shakeel R Saeed, Paediatrics, The Ear, Skull Base, 2018
Chris H. Raine, Sue Archbold, Tony Sirimanna, Soumit Dasgupta
The comprehensive CRIDE (Collaboration for Research in Deaf Education) 2015 report for the UK, available from www.batod.org.uk)125 reveals that: 65% of deaf children are in mainstream provision6% are in resource bases in mainstream2% are in schools for the deaf10% are in other special schools15% are educated at home. Whether to use a signed or oral approach has long been contentious. The Milan conference of 1880 concluded that the deaf were to be taught by oral means with the ‘uncontestable superiority of speech over sign’ and thus began 100 years of the dominance of oral education over sign – at a time when useful hearing could not be provided. The ‘oral’ view was challenged strongly by the reports of poor linguistic and educational outcomes125 and by the increasing voice of the deaf community, promoting its own culture and language. Sign language is silent, with a grammar of its own and cannot be used with spoken language, and an interest in sign bilingual programmes where sign language is used independently of spoken language grew. To summarize, communication choices used with deaf children can be categorized in three major groups: oral/aural alone;those approaches using speech and sign (total or simultaneous communication);sign bilingualism. There is increasing evidence that the new technologies of implantation and of earlier identification are changing some of these educational decisions.126 There appears to be an increasing percentage of deaf children in the UK using spoken language. The CRIDE125 shows that 87% of deaf children use spoken English or Welsh, with 2% using British or Welsh Sign Language and 8% using spoken English with signed support. The lack of empirical evidence for sign bilingualism and the better outcomes in terms of spoken language from early diagnosis and cochlear implantation than were predicted have been recognized.126 While the evidence for the best method to support the development of improved educational outcomes remains contentious, an oral input, rather than a sign bilingual one, is most effective in producing spoken language outcomes.116,129 This may be provided with signed support for spoken language, for those who may need some visual support, either prior to implantation or in specific situations.130
Psychosocial development of 5-year-old children with hearing loss: Risks and protective factors
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2018
Cara L. Wong, Teresa Y. Ching, Greg Leigh, Linda Cupples, Laura Button, Vivienne Marnane, Jessica Whitfield, Miriam Gunnourie, Louise Martin
The PLS-4 (Zimmerman et al, 2002) is a standardized language test used to identify language disorders between birth and 6;11 (years; months). The test contains two subscales of Expressive Communication (EC) and Auditory Comprehension (AC), which are combined to derive a ‘Total language score’. The EC subscale items for preschool age include naming of common objects, using concepts to describe objects, defining words, and using grammatical constructions. The AC subscale includes items that assess comprehension of vocabulary, concepts, complex sentences and drawing inferences. Standard scores and age-equivalent scores were calculated using normative data. There were 25 children in the study who were not able to complete the PLS-4 due to various reasons including: being from a non-English speaking background (n = 4), not wearing their HA on the day of testing (n = 1), not being available for testing (n = 5), compliance issues (n = 2), or unable to cope with the level of testing (n = 13). There were also 21 children who required the PLS-4 to be administered using simultaneous communication methods (i.e. a combination of signed and oral communication) making calculation of standard scores inappropriate for this group.
Development of an internet version of the Lidcombe Program of early stuttering intervention: A trial of Part 1
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2018
Sabine Van Eerdenbrugh, Ann Packman, Mark Onslow, Sue O’brian, Ross Menzies
Telepractice. There are a number of reviews of telepractice in SLP (Lowe, O’Brian, & Onslow, 2014; Mashima & Doarn, 2008; Theodoros, 2012). Telepractice refers to interventions that use telecommunication technology to deliver treatment to clients. Reviews of the use of telepractice interventions in SLP have concluded that they are most commonly delivered with the SLP in an office, providing treatment to a client in a different clinical location (Mashima & Doarn, 2008; Theodoros, 2012). Videoconferencing, ensuring simultaneous communication between two or more locations by internet and audio transmissions, is the most commonly used technique. In rural and remote regions in Australia, however, SLPs often have limited access to technology for telepractice due to workplace guidelines (Zabiela, Leitao, & Williams, 2007).
The oral language and reading comprehension skills of adolescents in flexible learning programmes
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2020
Pamela C. Snow, Linda J. Graham, Emina J. Mclean, Tanya A. Serry
Scores across the five discourse domains captured by the LCQ are summarised in Table II. Participants identified higher levels of difficulty in the Manner and Cognitive-Communicative domains. This indicates that participants in this sample perceive hesitations and dysfluencies in their everyday communication skills, report that they are easily side-tracked by irrelevant information, and have difficulty with topic management processes, such as beginning and ending conversations, and dealing with multiple simultaneous communication partners.