Language Sample Practices With Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

Purpose: In this study, we aimed to identify common language sample practices of professionals who work with children who are Deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) who use listening and spoken language as a means to better understand why and how language sampling can be utilized by speech-language pathologists serving this population. Method: An electronic questionnaire was disseminated to professionals who serve children who are DHH and use listening and spoken language in the United States. Participant responses were coded in an Excel file and checked for completeness. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze trends. Results: A total of 168 participants participated in the survey. A majority of participants reported that they use language sampling as a part of their intervention when working with children who are DHH. However, approximately half of participants reported using norm-referenced testing most often when evaluating language of children who are DHH, regardless of the fact that they felt that language samples were more sensitive in identifying the errors of children who are DHH. Participants reported using language samples to monitor progress and set goals for clients. Participants rarely used language samples for eligibility and interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions: Language samples offer a unique way to examine a child's language development that norm-referenced assessments are not sensitive enough to detect, particularly for children who are DHH. This offers insights into current practice and implications for the development of a more clearly defined language sample protocol to guide practices in the use of language samples with children who are DHH and use listening and spoken language.

Measuring Costs and Outcomes of Tele-Intervention When Serving Families of Children who are Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing.

BACKGROUND: Optimal outcomes for children who are deaf/hard-of-hearing (DHH) depend on access to high quality, specialized early intervention services. Tele-intervention (TI), the delivery of early intervention services via telehealth technology, has the potential to meet this need in a cost-effective manner. METHOD: Twenty-seven families of infants and toddlers with varying degrees of hearing loss participated in a randomized study, receiving their services primarily through TI or via traditional in-person home visits. Pre- and post-test measures of child outcomes, family and provider satisfaction, and costs were collected. RESULTS: The TI group scored statistically significantly higher on the expressive language measure than the in-person group (p =.03). A measure of home visit quality revealed that the TI group scored statistically significantly better on the Parent Engagement subscale of the Home Visit Rating Scales-Adapted & Extended (HOVRS-A+; Roggman et al., 2012). Cost savings associated with providing services via TI increased as the intensity of service delivery increased. Although most providers and families were positive about TI, there was great variability in their perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-intervention is a promising cost-effective method for delivering high quality early intervention services to families of children who are DHH.