Volume 11 - Articles-1400
MEJDS (2021) 11: 1 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasiannik Z, Hassanzadeh S, Farhadi M, Afrooz G A. Effects of Navayesh Family-Based Aural Rehabilitation Program of Distance Education on the Development of Language and Communication Skills in Hearing-Impaired Children With Cochlear Implant. MEJDS 2021; 11 :1-1
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1674-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1674-en.html
1- Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran
2- ENT-Head & Neck Research Center, Hazrate Rasoul Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences
2- ENT-Head & Neck Research Center, Hazrate Rasoul Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences
Abstract: (2457 Views)
Background & Objectives: Distance education is a novel method of aural rehabilitation. Virtual rehabilitation is among the top approaches in providing new education. Educating parents is one of the main factors in the virtual aural rehabilitation of hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. The vast size of Iran and the dispersion of the cochlear implanted population throughout the country; the lack of access to numerous cochlear implants by specialist rehabilitation centers in the city of residence; the importance of interventions at the youngest age; the long duration of rehabilitation (≥1 year); the inappropriate rehabilitation clinical settings for very young children; the increased use of online counseling and psychotherapy approaches, and the access of more individuals to the virtual world using a smartphone have led to the aural rehabilitation program developing using new technologies. Thus, this study aimed to determine the effect of the Navayesh family-based aural rehabilitation program of distance education on the development of language and communication skills in hearing-impaired children with a cochlear implant.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. In total, 40 hearing–impaired children with the cochlear implant of the Cochlear Implant Center at Rasul Akram Hospital, Tehran City, Iran, in 2018 were selected using the purposive sampling method. The study subjects were randomly divided into two groups (experimental & control; n=20/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were age (1–9 years), the age of cochlear implant (not more than two years passed since cochlear implantation), the parents’ educational level (literacy), internet access, the possibility of attending monthly meetings, no history of receiving rehabilitation programs and having a smartphone. Parents with frequent absence from the program (virtually & in–person) sessions (n=10) were excluded from the current study. The experimental group mothers received the Navayesh family–based aural rehabilitation program by Portal (http://user.navayesh.ir) and the Channel of Messenger and Aparat (https://www.aparat.com/Navayesh) in 80 sessions (online-offline). In the first phase, the design of the online portal and assignment classification, i.e., based on the Navayesh program was presented in the form of multimedia (audio, image, text), online, and offline. In the second phase, a pilot study was performed in the experimental group. The purpose of this program was to improve communication and language skills. The Ages and Stages Questionnaires–Third Edition (ASQ–3) (Bricker, 2009) and the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) (Allen et al., 1993) were used as the pretest and posttest scales to measure communication and language skills. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean & standard deviation) and inferential statistics, i.e., repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at the significance level of 0.05 in SPSS.
Results: The repeated–measures ANOVA data of speech intelligibility presented that in the source of the effect related to time, speech intelligibility was significant (p<0.001). Besides, the results were significant on the interaction of time and group (p<0.001).
According to the Eta squared of 0.62, approximately 62% of the intragroup changes were explained by auditory perception. The Eta squared of 0.55 indicated that about 55% of the changes in auditory perception were explained by grouping. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the between-group aspect (p<0.001).
The repeated–measures ANOVA data on social skill revealed that in the source of the effect related to time, the social skill was significant (p<0.001); the results were also significant about the interaction of time and group (p<0.001).
The Eta squared of 0.67 indicated that approximately 67% of the intragroup changes belonged to auditory perception; the Eta squared of 0.26 signified that almost 26% of the changes in auditory perception were induced by grouping. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the between-group dimension (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The present study results suggested the effects of the Navayesh family-based aural rehabilitation program of distance education on the language and communication performance in the explored hearing–impaired children with a cochlear implant. Therefore, it is recommended that this program be used at rehabilitation cochlear implant centers.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. In total, 40 hearing–impaired children with the cochlear implant of the Cochlear Implant Center at Rasul Akram Hospital, Tehran City, Iran, in 2018 were selected using the purposive sampling method. The study subjects were randomly divided into two groups (experimental & control; n=20/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were age (1–9 years), the age of cochlear implant (not more than two years passed since cochlear implantation), the parents’ educational level (literacy), internet access, the possibility of attending monthly meetings, no history of receiving rehabilitation programs and having a smartphone. Parents with frequent absence from the program (virtually & in–person) sessions (n=10) were excluded from the current study. The experimental group mothers received the Navayesh family–based aural rehabilitation program by Portal (http://user.navayesh.ir) and the Channel of Messenger and Aparat (https://www.aparat.com/Navayesh) in 80 sessions (online-offline). In the first phase, the design of the online portal and assignment classification, i.e., based on the Navayesh program was presented in the form of multimedia (audio, image, text), online, and offline. In the second phase, a pilot study was performed in the experimental group. The purpose of this program was to improve communication and language skills. The Ages and Stages Questionnaires–Third Edition (ASQ–3) (Bricker, 2009) and the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) (Allen et al., 1993) were used as the pretest and posttest scales to measure communication and language skills. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean & standard deviation) and inferential statistics, i.e., repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at the significance level of 0.05 in SPSS.
Results: The repeated–measures ANOVA data of speech intelligibility presented that in the source of the effect related to time, speech intelligibility was significant (p<0.001). Besides, the results were significant on the interaction of time and group (p<0.001).
According to the Eta squared of 0.62, approximately 62% of the intragroup changes were explained by auditory perception. The Eta squared of 0.55 indicated that about 55% of the changes in auditory perception were explained by grouping. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the between-group aspect (p<0.001).
The repeated–measures ANOVA data on social skill revealed that in the source of the effect related to time, the social skill was significant (p<0.001); the results were also significant about the interaction of time and group (p<0.001).
The Eta squared of 0.67 indicated that approximately 67% of the intragroup changes belonged to auditory perception; the Eta squared of 0.26 signified that almost 26% of the changes in auditory perception were induced by grouping. There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the between-group dimension (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The present study results suggested the effects of the Navayesh family-based aural rehabilitation program of distance education on the language and communication performance in the explored hearing–impaired children with a cochlear implant. Therefore, it is recommended that this program be used at rehabilitation cochlear implant centers.
Keywords: Aural rehabilitation, Distance education, Cochlear implant, Language skills, Social skills.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. 1. World health organization, Deafness and hearing loss [Internet]. 2019 March 20. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss
2. 2. National Policy for the Prevention of the Deaf in Iran. Research Project of Ear, Throat, Nose and Head and Neck Research Center, Office of Management of Other Infectious Diseases, Deputy of Health. National Institute of Health Research (Social Components of Health), 2014-2016. 1-17. [Article]
3. 3. Afrooz GhA. An introduction of psychology and education of exceptional children. Thirty sixth edition. Tehran: Tehran University; 2019, pp: 67–69. [Persian]
4. 4. Amrai K, Hassanzadeh S, Afrooz GhA. The effect of family-oriented social skills training program on cochlear implant users. Journal of Audiology. 2012; 21(3): 103–109. [Persian] [Article]
5. 5. Antia SD, Jones P, Luckner J, Kreimeyer KH, Reed S. Social outcomes of students who are deaf and hard of hearing in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children. 2011;77(4):489–504. [DOI]
6. 6. Antia SD, Kreimeyer KH, Reed S. Supporting students in general education classrooms. Oxford University Press; 2010. [DOI]
7. 7. McGowan RS, Nittrouer S, Chenausky K. Speech production in 12-month-old children with and without hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2008;51(4):879–88. [DOI]
8. 8. Cole EB, Flexer CA. Children with hearing loss: developing listening and talking, birth to six. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Pub; 2011, p: 434.
9. 9. Yanbay E, Hickson L, Scarinci N, Constantinescu G, Dettman SJ. Language outcomes for children with cochlear implants enrolled in different communication programs. Cochlear Implants International. 2014;15(3):121–35. [DOI]
10. 10. Hashemi SB, Rajaeefard A, Norouzpour H, Tabatabaee HR, Monshizadeh L. The effect of cochlear implantation on the improvement of the auditory performance in 2-7 years old children, Shiraz 2004-2008. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2013;15(3):223–8. [DOI]
11. 11. Huang J-P, Chen H-H, Yeh M-L. A comparison of diabetes learning with and without interactive multimedia to improve knowledge, control, and self-care among people with diabetes in Taiwan. Public Health Nursing. 2009;26(4):317–28. [DOI]
12. 12. Ferguson M, Brandreth M, Brassington W, Leighton P, Wharrad H. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits of a multimedia educational program for first-time hearing aid users. Ear and Hearing. 2016;37(2):123–36. [DOI]
13. 13. Thorén ES, Öberg M, Wänström G, Andersson G, Lunner T. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of online rehabilitative intervention for adult hearing-aid users. International Journal of Audiology. 2014;53(7):452–61. [DOI]
14. 14. Thorén E, Svensson M, Törnqvist A, Andersson G, Carlbring P, Lunner T. Rehabilitative online education versus internet discussion group for hearing aid users: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2011;22(05):274–85. [DOI]
15. 15. Malmberg M, Lunner T, Kähäri K, Andersson G. Evaluating the short-term and long-term effects of an internet-based aural rehabilitation programme for hearing aid users in general clinical practice: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5). [DOI]
16. 16. Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. Snyder J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5). [DOI]
17. 17. Jerger J. Aural rehabilitation and the internet. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2011;22(05):252–252. [DOI]
18. 18. Mosavi Kiasari N, Bayani AA, Rasti M. The impact of language multimedia software on training language and speech to children with hearing impairment. Exceptional Education. 2015;6(134):15–21. [Persian] [Article]
19. 19. Bazrafshan S, Alikhani M, Rastegar pour H. The effect of e-learning content (multimedia training) on learning science on deaf students’ girl in sixth grade. Exceptional Education. 2014;3(125):17–21. [Persian] [Article]
20. 20. Hassanzadeh S, Nikkhoo F. Effect of Navayesh parent-based comprehensive rehabilitation program on the development of early language and communication skills in deaf children aged 0-2 years. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2016;17(4):326–37. [DOI]
21. 21. Decker KB, Vallotton CD. Early intervention for children with hearing loss: information parents receive about supporting children’s language. Journal of Early Intervention. 2016;38(3):151–69. [DOI]
22. 22. Erbasi E, Scarinci N, Hickson L, Ching TYC. Parental involvement in the care and intervention of children with hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup2):S15–26. [DOI]
23. 23. Lam-Cassettari C, Wadnerkar-Kamble MB, James DM. Enhancing parent-child communication and parental self-esteem with a video-feedback intervention: outcomes with prelingual deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2015;20(3):266–74. [DOI]
24. 24. Bricker D, Squires J. Low cost system using parents to monitor the development of at-risk infants. Journal of Early Intervention.1989;13;(1):50–60. [DOI]
25. 25. Squires J, Bricker D. Ages & Stages Questionnaires: parent-completed child-monitoring system. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2009.
26. 26. Schonhaut L, Armijo I, Schonstedt M, Alvarez J, Cordero M. Validity of the ages and stages questionnaires in term and preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1468–74. [DOI]
27. 27. Hassanzadeh S, Ghadami, M The Ages and Stages Questionnaires-Third Edition (ASQ-3). 2019.
28. 28. Allen MC, Nikolopoulos TP, O’Donoghue GM. Speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implantation. The American Journal of Otology. 1998;19(6):742–6.
29. 29. Allen C, Nikolopoulos TP, Dyar D, O’Donoghue GM. Reliability of a rating scale for measuring speech intelligibility after pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22(5):631–3. [DOI]
30. 30. Hassanzadeh S. The psychometric properties of the Persian version of categorization of auditory performance ii and speech intelligibility rating scales in cochlear-implanted deaf children. Journal of Audiology. 2015; 23(6):76–84. [Persian]
31. 31. Paul PV, Whitelaw GM. Hearing and deafness: an introduction for health and education professionals. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2011, p. 308.
32. 32. Hassanzadeh S, Nikkhoo F. Rehabilitation of deaf children (comprehensive guide to therapists and parents). Tehran: Arjmand Publication; 2016. [Persian]
33. 33. Zaidman-Zait A, Young RA. Parental involvement in the habilitation process following children’s cochlear implantation: an action theory perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2008;13(2):193–214. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
