The Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Identified Early Through the High-Risk Registry

The high-risk registry was used as a screening device for identifying hearing loss for many decades in Colorado. It reportedly missed approximately 50% of all infants with congenital sensorineural hearing loss (Mehl & Thomson, 1998; Parving, 1993; Watkins, Baldwin, & McEnery, 1991). Little is known about the developmental characteristics of this population. This article describes children identified through the high-risk registry. These children have been divided into two groups according to their age of identification: (a) deaf and hard of hearing children identified before age 6 months, and (b) deaf and hard of hearing children identified between ages 7 and 18 months. The children identified before age 6 months and receiving intervention at an average of 2 to 3 months after identification of hearing loss had significantly higher levels of receptive and expressive language, personal-social development, expressive and receptive vocabulary, general development, situation comprehension, and vowel production. The high-risk registry used for newborn hearing screening has been replaced by universal newborn physiological hearing screening in the state of Colorado.

[1]  C. Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Early Identification of Infants with Significant Hearing Loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory , 1995 .

[2]  Christine Yoshinaga-Itano.  From Phone to Phoneme: What Can We Understand from Babble. , 1992 .

[3]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Variability in early communicative development. , 1994, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[4]  V. Thomson,et al.  Newborn Hearing Screening: The Great Omission , 1998, Pediatrics.

[5]  A. Gottfried,et al.  Validity of Minnesota Child Development Inventory in screening young children's developmental status. , 1984, Journal of pediatric psychology.

[6]  A. Parving.  Congenital hearing disability--epidemiology and identification: a comparison between two health authority districts. , 1993, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[7]  R. Schow,et al.  Introduction to aural rehabilitation , 1980 .

[8]  Marija J. Norusis,et al.  SPSS for Windows, Advanced Statistics, release 6.0 , 1993 .

[9]  G. Mcenery,et al.  Neonatal at risk screening and the identification of deafness. , 1991, Archives of disease in childhood.

[10]  Christine Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Language of Early- and Later-identified Children With Hearing Loss , 1998, Pediatrics.

[11]  H. Elbard,et al.  Screening effectiveness of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory expressive and receptive language scales: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. , 1990 .

[12]  H. Robinshaw.  Early intervention for hearing impairment: differences in the timing of communicative and linguistic development. , 1995, British journal of audiology.

[13]  P. Dale,et al.  The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  J. Tomblin,et al.  The concurrent validity of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory as a measure of young children's language development. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[15]  Hj Norussis,et al.  SPSS for Windows , 1993 .

[16]  C. Strong,et al.  The Relationship of Hearing‐Loss Severity to Demographic, Age, Treatment, and Intervention‐Effectiveness Variables , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[17]  J. Reznick,et al.  The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months , 1989, Journal of Child Language.