Gender differences in response to auditory-verbal intervention in children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Recent research has questioned the role of gender in language development and in special education outcomes, yet neither issue has been addressed in literature on students who are deaf or hard of hearing. To determine if language and placement outcomes differ by gender, the present study considered the behavior of children who attended a clinical program subscribing to an auditory-verbal philosophy. Parents of 28 boys and 42 girls with hearing losses evaluated their children using the Parent Rating Scale of the Leiter International Performance Scale--Revised (Roid & Miller, 1997) and the Parental View of Therapy Scale (developed for the present study). Also, clinical file data were surveyed. The boys were found to be more likely than the girls to be rated by their parents as having basic features of temperament nonconducive to traditional clinical language intervention. The girls' language and placement outcomes surpassed the boys', although both groups' outcomes were positive. A possible limitation of the study was that the population was atypical of students with hearing losses in general.

Teachers' ratings of functional communication in students with cochlear implants.

The study examined factors associated with teachers' ratings of functional communication skills of students with cochlear implants. Deaf students living in and around a metropolitan area were surveyed to locate 51 with cochlear implants. Teachers rated each student's functional use of the implant, given three defined ratings. Additional information regarding sex, communication option, placement, home language, rural or nonrural address, etiology, and presence or absence of an additional disability was gathered. Chi-square analyses of the data were performed. The data indicated that students with a known etiology and a rural address, and who used sign language at home or school, were less likely than others to use the implant as a primary channel for receptive communication. The authors suggest that the teacher's role in implant use warrants more attention. Speech-language pathologists, otologists, audiologists, and parents of deaf children should consider all factors related to successful implant use before advocating or choosing this financially, emotionally, and therapeutically challenging option.

Child and family factors associated with deaf children's success in auditory-verbal therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the general demographics of children who had Auditory-Verbal therapy and to identify child and family factors associated with differences between those children for whom Auditory-Verbal therapy led to success and those for whom it did not. SETTING: Private tertiary care facility. POPULATION: Children who had hearing losses ranging from mild to profound. INTERVENTION: Auditory-Verbal therapy, a therapeutic intervention designed to teach parents to educate their young deaf and hearing-impaired children to use residual hearing and to speak, was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinic files, parent questionnaires, and parent report of current success were used to determine efficacy of treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of the clients who remained in this program for over 1 year were fully integrated into regular education, with no services from a teacher of the deaf. The population was affluent, with more females than expected. Those who left dissatisfied tended to be males with greater degrees of hearing loss who left the program soon after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Auditory-Verbal therapy provides successful intervention to students with a particular set of demographic characteristics.