Skip Navigation

The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2004 9(4):395-412; doi:10.1093/deafed/enh033
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, P. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education vol. 9 no. 4 © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.

Empirical Articles

Individual Differences in Language Performance after Cochlear Implantation at One to Three Years of Age: Child, Family, and Linguistic Factors

Patricia E. Spencer

Gallaudet University

Language skills were investigated in a multicultural sample of 13 prelingually deaf children (11 profoundly deaf from birth) who received cochlear implants between 14 and 38 months of age; average duration of implant use was 49 months. Individual postimplant language skills ranged from extremely delayed to age appropriate. On average, skills varied across domains: on vocabulary, several children functioned in the average range compared with hearing peers, but all were below that range on a test emphasizing syntax (CELF-P). Children with preimplant hearing experience had the highest scores on all language measures. Excluding these children, age of implantation (range 14 to 27 months) associated inversely and significantly with CELF-P scores, even when nonverbal IQ was controlled. Qualitative analyses indicated higher child language achievement associated with parents' reports of lengthy, in-depth processes to decide about cochlear implantation. Such reports may indicate high levels of ongoing parent involvement with child and programming.

All correspondence should be sent to Patricia E. Spencer, 31 Flamingo Rd., Rockport, TX 78382 (e-mail: patspencer3{at}juno.com).

Received January 26, 2004; revised March 9, 2004; accepted March 11, 2004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
A. Zaidman-Zait and R. A. Young
Parental Involvement in the Habilitation Process Following Children's Cochlear Implantation: An Action Theory Perspective
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2008; 13(2): 193 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
J. G. Nicholas and A. E. Geers
Will They Catch Up? The Role of Age at Cochlear Implantation in the Spoken Language Development of Children With Severe to Profound Hearing Loss
J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2007; 50(4): 1048 - 1062.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
A. Zaidman-Zait
Parenting a Child With a Cochlear Implant: A Critical Incident Study
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2007; 12(2): 221 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
J. Klatter-Folmer, R. van Hout, E. Kolen, and L. Verhoeven
Language Development in Deaf Children's Interactions With Deaf and Hearing Adults: A Dutch Longitudinal Study
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2006; 11(2): 238 - 251.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Child Language Teaching and TherapyHome page
H. Lloyd, K. Paintin, and N. Botting
Performance of children with different types of communication impairment on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF)
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, February 1, 2006; 22(1): 47 - 67.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
M. Hyde and D. Power
Some Ethical Dimensions of Cochlear Implantation for Deaf Children and Their Families
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., January 1, 2006; 11(1): 102 - 111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.