Mohr, P. et al. (2000). The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States.

Mohr, P. E., Feldman, J. J., Dunbar, J. L., McConkey-Robbins, A., Niparko, J. K., Rittenhouse, R. K., & Skinner, M. W. (2000). The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(4), 1120-1135.

Objective: Severe to profound hearing impairment affects one-half to three-quarters of a million Americans. To function in a hearing society, hearing-impaired persons require specialized educational, social services, and other resources. The primary purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive, national, and recent estimate of the economic burden of hearing impairment.
Methods: The researchers constructed a cohort-survival model to estimate the lifetime costs of hearing impairment. Data for the model were derived principally from the analyses of secondary data sources including the National Health Interview Survey Hearing Loss and Disability Supplements, the Department of Education's National Longitudinal Transition Study, and Gallaudet University's Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth. These analyses were supplemented by a review of the literature and consultation with a four-member expert panel.
Results: Severe to profound hearing loss is expected to cost society $297,000 over the lifetime of an individual. Most of these losses are due to reduced work productivity, although the use of special education resources among children contributes an additional 21%. Lifetime costs for those with prelingual onset exceed $1 million.
Conclusions: Results indicate that an additional $4.6 billion will be spent over the lifetime of persons who acquired their impairment in 1998. The particularly high costs associated with prelingual onset of severe to profound hearing impairment suggest interventions aimed at children, such as early identification and/or aggressive medical intervention, may have a substantial payback.

Honeycutt, A. et al. (2004). Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment.

Honeycutt, A., Dunlap, L., Chen, H., Homsi, G., Grosse, S., & Schendel, D. (2004). Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5303a4.htm

Developmental disabilities (DDs) are chronic conditions that initially manifest in persons aged less than 18 years and result in impairment of physical health, mental health, cognition, speech, language, or self-care. The majority of persons with DDs require long-term supportive care or services. In 2003, RTI International (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) analyzed data from multiple surveys and reports to estimate the direct and indirect economic costs associated with four DDs in the United States. On the basis of that analysis, estimated lifetime costs are expected to total $51.2 billion for persons born in 2000 with mental retardation, $11.5 billion for persons with cerebral palsy, $2.1 billion for persons with hearing loss, and $2.5 billion for persons with vision impairment. These estimates underscore the need for effective primary and secondary prevention measures (e.g., newborn screening for hearing and metabolic disorders and smoking-cessation counseling for pregnant women) to reduce the costs associated with DDs.

Crockett, R. et al. (2005). Maternal anxiety and satisfaction following infant hearing screening.

Crockett, R., Baker, H., Uus, K., Bamford, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2005). Maternal anxiety and satisfaction following infant hearing screening: A comparison of the health visitor distraction test and newborn hearing screening. Journal of Medical Screening, 12(2), 78-81.

Background: Newborn hearing screening is currently replacing the health visitor distraction test (HVDT) conducted at eight months. Previous research indicates that recall for further tests following newborn hearing screening can have a negative impact on the emotional well being of mothers, but it is not known if this is greater than that caused by recall following the distraction test.
Objective: To compare the impact on maternal anxiety and satisfaction of recall following newborn hearing screening and the HVDT.
Methods: Four groups participated: 27 mothers of babies receiving a satisfactory result and 21 mothers of babies recalled after the HVDT, 26 mothers of babies receiving a satisfactory result and 16 mothers of babies recalled after newborn hearing screening. Questionnaires assessing maternal anxiety, worry, and certainty about the babies’ hearing, satisfaction with and attitudes towards the screening test were sent to mothers three weeks and six months following screening.
Results: Comparison of the effects of receipt of different results showed no significant differences in maternal anxiety, worry, and certainty between the two tests. Those mothers whose babies had a newborn hearing screening test were significantly more satisfied, regardless of the result received. Those who received a satisfactory result on the newborn hearing screening program also had more positive attitudes towards that screening test than those receiving a satisfactory result following the HVDT.
Conclusion: These results suggest that newborn hearing screening does not have a more negative emotional impact than the HVDT.

Jackson, C. W., & Turnbull, A. (2004). Impact of deafness on family life

Jackson, C. W., & Turnbull, A. (2004). Impact of deafness on family life: A review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 1 (pp.15-27).

The presence of deafness in a family has the potential to affect all areas of family life. An understanding of the impact on family life is critical to addressing all components of the family system in early intervention. This review synthesizes the literature on deafness as it relates to four domains of family quality of life, including family interaction, family resources, parenting, and support for the child who is deaf. Implications for future research are discussed.

Marschark, M., et. al. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on reading and academic achievement

Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., & Fabich, M. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on children's reading and academic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 3.

This article presents a critical analysis of empirical studies assessing literacy and other domains of academic achievement among children with cochlear implants. A variety of recent studies have demonstrated benefits to hearing, language, and speech from implants, leading to assumptions that early implantation and longer periods of implant should be associated with higher reading and academic achievement.
This review, however, reveals that although there are clear benefits of cochlear implantation to achievement in young deaf children, empirical results have been somewhat variable. Examination of the literature with regard to reading achievement suggests that the lack of consistent findings might be the result of frequent failures to control potentially confounding variables such as age of implantation, language skills prior to implantation, reading ability prior to implantation, and consistency of implant use. Studies of academic achievement beyond reading are relatively rare, and the extent to which performance in such domains is mediated by reading abilities or directly influenced by hearing, language, and speech remains unclear. Considerations of methodological shortcomings in existing research as well as theoretical and practical questions yet to be addressed provide direction for future research.

Thompson, R.H. et. al. (2007). Enhancing early communication through sign

Thompson, R.H., Cotnoir-Bichelman, N.M., McKerchar, P.M., Tate, T.L., & Dancho, K.A. (2007). Enhancing early communication through infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 15-23.

Existing research suggests that there may be benefits to teaching signing to hearing infants who have not yet developed vocal communication. In this study, each of 4 infants ranging in age from 6 to 10 months was taught a simple sign using delayed prompting and reinforcement. In addition, Experiment 1 showed that 2 children independently signed in a variety of novel stimulus conditions (e.g., in a classroom, with father) after participating in sign training under controlled experimental conditions. In Experiment 2, crying and whining were replaced with signing when sign training was implemented in combination with extinction.

Malloy, T.V. (2003). Sign Language use for babies

Malloy, T.V. (2003). Sign language use for deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing babies: The evidence supports it. American Society for Deaf Children.

Linguistic proficiency has been called a central requirement for human life (Magnuson, 2000). Parents and professionals have rightly given great importance to the various discussions and studies concerning methods most likely to further children’s language development. Educators and parents have long debated whether access to visual language enhances or hampers the efforts of deaf and hard of hearing children who are learning to develop spoken language and literacy skills. In more recent times, the discussion has broadened to include the relative merits of signed languages when used with children who have no auditory impairments. Does the use of signs encourage language development in young children? If so, are the advantages available only to specific populations? This article is a review of current research addressing these questions. Conclusions drawn support the use of sign language with all children: hearing, hard of hearing, and deaf, and including those who benefit from technological hearing supports. The information provided is by no means exhaustive, but is intended to serve as a resource for parents and professionals working with all populations of children, as they seek to help individuals reach their full potential.

Wolfe et al. (2007) Results for Sequentially Implanted CIs

Wolfe, J., Baker, S., Caraway, T., Kasulis, H., Mears, A., Smith, J., Swim, L., & Wood, M. (2007). 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users. Otology & Neurotology.

Objective: Evaluate speech recognition in quiet and in noise for
a group of 12 children, all of whom underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages (range, 1 yr, 8 mo to 9 yr, 6 mo at time of second implant).
Main Outcome Measures: Speech recognition in quiet was evaluated for each ear separately using single-word speech recognition assessments (Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test and Early Speech Perception Test) via recorded presentation. Speech recognition in noise was assessed for each ear separately and in the bilateral condition by obtaining a spondee recognition threshold in the presence of speech-weighted noise presented at 45 dB hearing level. The primary outcome measure for speech recognition in noise assessment was the signal-to-noise ratio for 50% performance, which was calculated by determining the difference between the presentation level of the noise and the presentation level at which the speech recognition threshold was obtained. The results of these assessments were contrasted between children receiving their second cochlear implant before 4 years of age and children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age.
Results: A statistically significant difference for speech recognition scores in quiet was obtained between the early implanted ear and the late-implanted ears for children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age. There was not a statistically significant difference in speech recognition scores in quiet between the early-implanted and late-implanted ears of children receiving their second cochlear before 4 years of age. Both groups of children possessed better speech recognition scores in noise (statistically significant at an > = 0.05) in the bilateral condition relative to either unilateral condition. However, there was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition performance in noise and the duration of deafness of the later implanted ear.
Conclusion: Bilateral cochlear implantation allowed for better speech recognition in noise relative to unilateral performance for a group of 12 children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages. There was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition in noise benefit, which was defined as the difference in performance between the first implanted ear and the bilateral condition and the age at which the second implant was received. Children receiving bilateral cochlear implants younger than 4 years of age achieved better speech recognition in quiet performance for the later implanted ear as compared with children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 year of age.

Mitchell, R. E. & Karchmer, M. A. (2004) parental hearing status for deaf and hard of hearing students

Mitchell, R.E. & Karchmer, M.A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138-163.

Deaf children born to deaf parents are likely to grow up in a social, cultural, and linguistic milieu different from that in which children of hearing parents grow up. The goal of this article was to determine the prevalence of "deaf-of-deaf" children within the overall group of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Based largely on the Annual Survey conducted by Gallaudet University, the authors concluded that about 4 percent of deaf children are born to deaf parents, instead of the often-cited ten percent. The Annual Survey collects demographic, program, and service data for each child using voluntary and confidential information provided by schools and programs serving deaf and hard of hearing pre-K through grade 12 and youth in the United States. The authors concluded that estimating the prevalence of deaf-of-deaf students is difficult and parental hearing status information is unavailable for a large number of students.

Eiserman et al. (2007) Screening for heairng loss in early childhood programs

Abstract

This study assessed the feasibility of doing hearing screening in Migrant, American Indian and Early Head Start programs using otoacoustic emissions (OAE) technology. Staff members were trained to screen 0–3-year-old children for hearing loss using handheld OAE equipment and a multi-step screening and referral protocol. Of the 3486 children screened as a part of the study, 77% passed an OAE screening at the first step, 18% more passed an OAE screening at the second step, and 5% were ultimately referred for medical or audiological follow-up. Eighty children were identified as having a hearing loss or disorder of the outer, middle or inner ear requiring treatment. Of these 80, six had permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. The median time required to complete a single OAE screening session was 4 minutes per child. The results demonstrate that OAE screening of young children using this protocol is practical and effective. The implications for conducting periodic hearing screening throughout early childhood are discussed.

Nicholas and Geers (2007) Will they catch up?

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study evaluated whether younger cochlear implantation, longer cochlear implant use, and greater pre-implant aided hearing was associated with better language outcomesat 3.5 and 4.5 years of age.

Method: Language samples were obtained at ages 3.5 and 4.5 years from 76 children who received an implant by their 3rd birthday. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify characteristics associated with spoken language outcomes at the 2 test ages. The Preschool Language Scale was used to compare the participants’ skills with those of hearing age-mates at age 4.5 years.

Results: Expected language scores increased with younger age at implant and lower pre-implant thresholds, even when compared at the same duration of implant use. Expected Preschool Language Scale scores of the children who received the implant at the youngest ages reached those of hearing age-mates by 4.5 years, but those children implanted after 24 months of age did not catch up with hearing peers.

Conclusion: Children who received a cochlear implant before a substantial delay in spoken language developed (i.e., between 12 and 16 months) were more likely to achieve age-appropriate spoken language. These results favor cochlear implantation before 24 months of age, especially for children with aided pure-tone average thresholds greater than 65 dB prior to surgery.

Rubens et al. (2007) Do otoacoustic emissions predict SIDS?

Abstract

Rubens DD, et al (2007) Newborn oto-acoustic emission hearing screening tests.Early Hum Dev. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.06.001

Objective: To evaluate the newborn transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) hearing screening tests of infants later diagnosed with the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Study design: In a case-controlled study, the newborn TEOAE hearing screens of 31 infants who subsequently died of SIDS were retrospectively compared to those of 31 newborn infants that survived the first year of life. SIDS cases were individually matched to surviving controls based on gender, term versus preterm age and NICU versus well baby nursery.

Results: The TEOAE screens of SIDS infants demonstrated significantly decreased signal to noise ratios at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz (p <>

Conclusion: Newborns at risk for SIDS are currently indistinguishable from other newborns and are only identified following a later fatal event. A unilateral difference in cochlear function is a unique finding that may offer the opportunity to identify infants at risk of SIDS during the early postnatal period with a simple non invasive hearing screen test. The ability to implement preventative measures well in advance of a potential critical incident would be an important breakthrough.