Auditory and language skills development after cochlear implantation in children with multiple disabilities
Cochlear implantation (CI) in children with additional disabilities can be a fundamental and supportive intervention. Although, there may be some positive impacts of CI on children with multiple disabilities such as better outcomes of communication skills, development, and quality of life, the families of those children complain from the post-implant habilitation efforts that considered as a burden.
To investigate the outcomes of CI children with different co-disabilities through using the Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS) and the Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS) as outcome measurement tools.
The study sample comprised 25 hearing-impaired children with co-disability who received cochlear implantation. Age and gender-matched control group of 25 cochlear-implanted children without any other disability has been also included. The participants’ auditory skills and speech outcomes were assessed using MAIS and MUSS tests.
There was a statistically significant difference in the different outcomes measure between the two groups. However, the outcomes of some multiple disabilities subgroups were comparable to the control group. Around 40% of the participants with co-disabilities experienced advancement in their methods of communication from behavior to oral mode.
Cochlear-implanted children with multiple disabilities showed variable degrees of auditory and speech outcomes. The degree of benefits depends on the type of the co-disability. Long-term follow-up is recommended for those children.
KeywordsChildren with disabilities Hearing impairment Cochlear implants Language development
The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, king Saud University for funding through Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.World Health Organization (2018) Addressing the rising prevalence of hearing loss. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 2.Gallaudet-Research-Institute (2013) 2011–2012 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Gallaudet Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 4.Eisenberg LS (2017) Clinical management of children with cochlear implants, 2nd edn. Plural Publishing Inc., San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 7.Zaidman-Zait A, Curle D, Jamieson JR, Chia R, Kozak FK (2015) Cochlear implantation among deaf children with additional disabilities: parental perceptions of benefits, challenges, and service provision. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2015;20:41–50Google Scholar
- 10.Robbins AM, Osberger MJ (1991) Meaningful use of speech scale (muss). American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 11.Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW (1991) Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Am J Otol 12 Suppl:144–150Google Scholar
- 19.19 Shevell M, Ashwal S, Donley D, Flint J, Gingold M, Hirtz D, Majnemer A, Noetzel M, Sheth RD, Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of N (2003) Practice Committee of the Child Neurology S: practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay: report of the quality standards subcommittee of the american academy of neurology and the practice committee of the child neurology society. Neurology 60:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar