Capability of deaf children with a cochlear implant

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the children with cochlear implants and the age-matched normal-hearing controls.

Characteristic	Children with CI	Normal-hearing children
n	19	23
Ageyears, M (SD)	10.3 (1.3)	10.5 (1.1)
Age of Implantationyears, M (SD)	3.3 (2.2)	NA
Gender, m/f	5/14	11/12
Unilateral/bilateral cochlear implantation	6/13	NA
Education, mainstream/special	11/8	23/0
Aetiology
Pneumococcal meningitis	1	NA
Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder	1	NA
Hereditary deafness	1	NA
Usher syndrome I	1	NA
Pendred syndrome	1	NA
DFNB1, DFNB3, DFNB8	3	NA
Unknown	11	NA

Table 2. Capability levels as defined based on response combinations.

Capability level	Response combination
A (Optimal)	1.1 statement about functioning very true, easily performed OR
	2.1 statement about functioning a bit true, easily performed
B (Moderate)	1.2, 1.3 statement about functioning very true, but performance a bit or very difficult, OR
	2.2, 2.3 statement about functioning a bit true, performance a bit or very difficult, OR
	3.1, 3.2 statement about functioning not true, but can be performed
C (None)	3.3 statement about functioning not true, performance not possible

Figure 1. Box plots of the percentage of items per capability level for the children with cochlear implants (CI) and the normal-hearing children (NH).

Table 3. Results of chi-square tests and descriptive statistics for Capability Level per study group.

Item	Capability level	Child-normal hearing	Child-cochlear implant	χ^2	df	p
Understanding the teacher	Optimal (A)	18 (78%)	7 (37%)	7.466	2	.024
	Sub-optimal (B or C)	5 (22%)	12 (63%)
Searching for information on the internet	Optimal (A)	19 (83%)	9 (47%)	8.972	3	.03
	Sub-optimal (B or C)	4 (17%)	10 (53%)
Meeting with friends	Optimal (A)	22 (96%)	9 (47%)	13.190	4	.01
	Sub-optimal (B or C)	1 (4%)	10 (53%)
Tell someone when s(he) doesn’t understand	Optimal (A)	19 (83%)	6 (32%)	14.655	3	.002
	Sub-optimal (B or C)	4 (17%)	13 (68%)
Getting freedom from parents	Optimal (A)	22 (96%)	12 (63%)	7.966	3	.047
	Sub-optimal (B or C)	1 (4%)	7 (37%)

Figure 2. Phoneme scores for the speech perception in noise test and the capabilities for the children with cochlear implants. The grey lines are regression lines and 95% confidence intervals; the vertical and horizontal reference lines indicate cut-off points for the two outcomes.

Figure 3. Word comprehension as expressed in the verbal comprehension quotient and the capabilities for the children with cochlear implants. The grey lines are regression lines and 95% confidence intervals; the vertical and horizontal reference lines indicate cut-off points for the two outcomes.

Table 4. Examples of capability constraints reported by children with cochlear implants.

Item	Answer
Understanding the teacher	“The teacher signs too fast and she sometimes uses difficult signs or words.” – Girl (11)
	“Sometimes I do not hear it.” – Girl (10)
Information on the internet	“I don’t know what words to use [in my search terms].” – Boy (9)
	“I find it hard to type.” – Girl (9)
Meeting with friends	“My friends live very far away, so I would be home too late.” – Girl (8)
	“I find it difficult when friends want something different from what I want.” – Boy (9)
Tell someone when s(he) doesn’t understand	“I cannot talk clearly” – Girl (11)
	“If I don’t know someone, I don’t know how they are going to react.” – Girl (10)
Freedom from parents	“Those are my parents’ rules.” – Girl (9)
	“I’m not allowed to ride my bike when it’s getting dark.” – Girl (10)