Identifying Critical Delays in Primary Language Development:

Transcription

1 Identifying Critical Delays in Primary Language Development: Data from Infants and School Age Deaf Children ACE-DHH Conference February 18, 2010 Pamela Luft Kent State University

2 Research Objectives To identify the age at which young deaf children begin to lag significantly behind their peers language development. To identify language interventions to: target critical ages and to prevent this lifelong developmental delay.

3 Problem of Language Delay Most DCHP have poor literacy and academic outcomes SAT results lag substantially behind hearing peers No change in literacy levels since 1962 DHH at all levels of hearing loss often have substantial delays Researchers have found very similar performance deficits

4 Research Populations Local parent-infant programs report appropriate age-level language development School systems report significant language delays by age 5. Where is the developmental delay occurring?

5 Current Testing Concerns Programs do not use normed and standardized language assessments P-I programs use Ski-Hi Language age bands but no empirical data

6 Current Testing Concerns K-12 programs do not assess language, despite significant delays SLPs and diagnosticians are not skilled across communication modalities Students are beyond age limits Curriculum and NCLB do not address language OSD uses the French language assessment No age norms

7 Current Testing Concerns Language delays and deficits remain undocumented Procedures for inclusion do not include language fluency Grade level testing presumes instructional or curricular deficits for low scores No statistical correlations between language development and academic achievement

8 Research Methods Use the Ski-Hi Language Development Scale (LDS) 160 children and families from 14 counties Re-analyze and track using age-bands

9 Research Methods Implement K-12 testing Use the Preschool Language Scale-4th ed. Used by Yoshinaga-Itano: population validity Ceiling of 6 years 11 months Addresses foundational language competencies Test using the primary/preferred language of the child Correlate with academic testing results

10 Current Analyses Local parent-infant program 14 counties across urban, surburban, and urban districts 160 infants and families served in 2006 What are the developmental trends?

11 SKI-HI Language Development Scale SKI-HI LDS

12 LDS Analytic Procedures Calculate child s age Compare CA with test-level age-band If CA is within the age-band, enter 0 If CA is lower than age-band, use lower number to calculate + development If CA is higher than age-band, use higher number to calculate - development Compare development across sample

13 LDS Data 160 children Baseline + 3 years of quarterly testing Missing data 22 had only baseline data 35 had 4+ data points 11 had Y1 & Y2

14 LDS Data Reasons for missing data Program is voluntary Parents are solicited from several agencies Help Me Grow Cochlear Implant Centers Families transition to Pre-K services at 3 years

15 Anticipated Analyses ANOVA Repeated measures 6-month age groups Receptive and Expressive language development Graph of developmental trend lines

16 Results 0 means normal development Scores are fractions of years 1.25 = 15 months 2.5 = 30 months No Year 3 analyses

17 Number of Children Tested: Receptive Language Testing Period Birth-6 Mos Mos. Age Group Mos Yrs Yrs Yrs. Baseline Y1 Q Y1 Q Y1 Q Y1 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q

18 Receptive Language Development Over Two Years by Age Group Baseline Y1 Q1 Y1 Q2 Y1 Q3 Y1 Q4 Y2 Q1 Y2 Q2 Y2 Q3 Y2 Q4 0-6 mos mos mos mos yrs yrs

19 Number of Children Tested: Expressive Language Testing Period Birth-6 Mos Mos. Age Group Mos Yrs Yrs Yrs. Baseline Y1 Q Y1 Q Y1 Q Y1 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q Y2 Q

20 Receptive Language Development Over Two Years by Age Group Baseline Y1 Q1 Y1 Q2 Y1 Q3 Y1 Q4 Y2 Q1 Y2 Q2 Y2 Q3 Y2 Q4 0-6 mos mos mos mos yrs yrs

21 Receptive Language Development Over One Year Baseline End of Year 1 Group 1 (0-6 Mos.) N= Group 2 (6-12 Mos.) N= Group 3 (12-18 Mos.) N= Analyzed using only those having both baseline and Y1Q4 scores

22 Receptive Language Development Over Two Years Baseline End of Year 2 Group 1 (0-6 Mos.) N= Group 2 (6-12 Mos.) N=16 Group 3 (12-18 Mos.) N= Analyzed using only those having both baseline and Y2Q4 scores

23 Summary of Results Receptive Language Repeated Measures ANOVA Receptive Language Over One Year: Significant effect for group (p<.001): Overall, summed across time, group 3 was lower than group 2 which was lower than group 1. Receptive Language Over Two Years: Significant effect for time (p<.01): Summed across groups, time 2 was lower than time 1. Significant effect for group (p<.001): Summed across time, Group 1 was higher than either group 2 or 3, which were not different from each other. No significant interaction effects

24 Expressive Language Development Over One Year Baseline End of Year 1 Group 1 (0-6 Mos.) N= Group 2 (6-12 Mos.) N= Group 3 (12-18 Mos.) N= Analyzed using only those having both baseline and Y1Q4 scores

25 Expressive Language Development Over Two Years Baseline End of Year 2 Group 1 (0-6 Mos.) N= Group 2 (6-12 Mos.) N= Group 3 (12-18 Mos.) N= Analyzed using only those having both baseline and Y2Q4 scores

26 Summary of Results Expressive Language Repeated Measures ANOVA Expressive Language Over One Year: Significant effect for group (p<.001): Overall, summed across time, group 3 was lower than group 2 which was lower than group 1. Expressive Language Over Two Years: Significant effect for time (p<.01): Summed across groups, time 2 was lower than time 1. Significant effect for group (p<.001): Summed across time, Group 1 was higher than either group 2 or 3, which were not different from each other. No significant interaction effects

27 Public School Language Assessment

28 Public School Language Assessment Where are the DHH students with normal language development? Collaborating School District Suburban location with semi-regional services Preschool: many students are significantly delayed they were clients of the PI program Elementary: several new students with minimal language skills

29 Ohio Service Issues Preschool children with CI or HA are considered served They qualify for no other supports or services Parent supports appear to be minimal Language data that show long-term impacts may help to change this

30 PLS-4 Public School Assessment Collaboration with OSD PLS-4 revision to provide ASL option Utilize the same age norms: these represent language fundamentals that are universal Identify equivalent ASL developmental items Consonant-vowel combinations = handshape + movement combinations

31 Public School Assessment ASL-using K-12 public school program Utilize the PLS-4 for assessment SLPs routinely assess DHH students Do not incorporate ASL Securing research approval Development and pilot testing of PLS-ASL

32 Public School Assessment ASL Development Resources Anderson (2006) lexical development: 1 st 30 expressive signs Easterbrooks & Baker (2002) ASL development (chapter 4) PLS-4-ASL

33 Initial Summary and Next Steps Families who enroll later have children with poorer language development outcomes With additional data: Impact of location urban, rural, suburban Impact of hearing technology CI/HA Identify the age when delays become significant PLS-ASL: K-12 pilot testing this spring

34 Next Steps Questions and suggestions?

35 Contact Information Pamela Luft, Ph.D (v) (vp)

36 References Anderson, D. (2006). Lexical development of deaf children acquiring signed languages. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Advanced in the sign language development of deaf children (pp ). Blamey, P. J., Sarant, J., Z, Paatsch, L. E., Barry, J. G., Bow, C. P., Wales, R. J., Wright, M., Psarros, C.; Rattigan, K., & Tooher, R. (2001). Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, Davis, J. M., Elfenbein, J., Schum, R., & Bentler, R. A. (1986). Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behavior of children. Journal of Soeech and Hearing Disorders, 51, Easterbrooks, S.R. & Baker, S. (2002). Language Learning in Children who are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing. Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Gilbertson, M. & Kamhi, A. G. (1995). Novel word learning in children with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38, Gilbertson, M. & Kamhi, A. G. (1995). Novel word learning in children with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38, Karchmer, M. A. & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp ). New York: Oxford University. Lederberg, A. R., & Everhart, V. S. (1998). Communication between deaf children and their hearing mothers: The role of language gesture, and vocalizations. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing, Research, 41, Marschark, M., & Lukomski, J. (2001). Understanding language and learning in deaf children. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark, and M. Karchmer, (Eds.) Context, cognition, and deafness (pp ). Washington, DC.: Gallaudet University. Mayne, A. M. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100, Mayne, A., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., & Carey, A. (2000). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. In C. Yoshinaga-Itano & A. L. Sedey (Eds.), Language, speech and social-emotional development of children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing: The early years. Volta Review, 100, Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2000). Successful outcomes for deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Seminars in Hearing, 21,