This pilot study compared tele-intervention to conventional intervention for children with hearing loss in terms of communication performance, parental perceptions and clinician perceptions.
Methods
A within-subject design was employed, including 10 children with hearing loss and their parents who each received a structurally similar tele-intervention and conventional intervention session in a counterbalanced manner. Quality of communication performance was analysed using a modified Tait video analysis method. Parent and clinician perceptions were collected through rating-scale surveys and thematic analysis of qualitative responses.
Results
No significant difference (p > 0.05) was found between tele-intervention and conventional intervention in terms of communication performance of children. Parent perceptions were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between conventional and tele-intervention in terms of facilitating meaningful communication interaction. Significant differences were evident for parents' comfort level during the session, whether they found it to be a beneficial experience and whether they would like to continue receiving intervention through this method. Clinician perceptions of conventional and tele-intervention were not significantly different (p > 0.05) and tele-intervention was deemed a valuable method of service delivery for clients.
Discussion
This study provides preliminary evidence that tele-intervention is effective for communication intervention and can be a valuable solution to typical barriers such as distance and the shortage of trained interventionists.
OlusanyaBOSwanepoelDChapchapMJ. Progress towards early detection services for infants with hearing loss in developing countries. BMC Health Serv Res2007; 7: 14–14.
2.
Yoshinaga-ItanoCSedeyALCoulterDK. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics1998; 102: 1161–1171.
3.
Yoshinaga-ItanoCSnyderL. The relationship of language and symbolic play in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Volta Rev1999; 100: 135–164.
4.
SnyderLYoshinaga-ItanoC. Specific play behaviors and the development of communication in children with hearing loss. Volta Rev1999; 100: 165–185.
5.
MoellerMP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics2000; 106: e43–e43.
6.
CalderonRNaiduS. Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Rev2000; 100: 53–84.
7.
CalderonR. Parental involvement in deaf children’s education programs as a predictor of child’s language, early reading, and social-emotional development. J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu2000; 5: 140–155.
8.
KennedyCRMcCannDCCampbellMJ. Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. N Engl J Med2006; 354: 2131–2141.
9.
OlusanyaBONewtonVE. Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priority project for developing countries. Lancet2007; 369: 1314–1317.
10.
OlusanyaBOEmokpaeARennerJK. Costs and performance of early hearing detection programmes in Lagos, Nigeria. T Roy Soc Trop Med H2009; 103: 179–186.
WhiteKR. Early intervention for children with permanent hearing loss: Finishing the EHDI revolution. Volta Rev2006; 106: 237–258.
14.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Supplement to the JCIH 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early intervention after confirmation that a child is deaf or hard of hearing. Pediatrics2013; 131: 1324–1349.
15.
McCarthyMMuñozMWhiteKR. Teleintervention for infants and young children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Pediatrics2010; 126: 52–58.
16.
SwanepoelDClarkJLKoekemoerD. Telehealth in audiology: The need and potential to reach underserved communities. Int J Audiol2010; 49: 195–202.
17.
HoustonKTPerigoeC. Speech-language pathologists: Vital listening and spoken language professionals. Volta Rev2010; 110: 219–230.
18.
ShulmanSBesculidesMSaltzmanA. Evaluation of the universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program. Pediatrics2010; 126: 19–27.
19.
HoustonKTMunozKFBradhamTS. Professional development: Are we meeting the needs of state EHDI programs?Volta Rev2011; 111: 209–223.
20.
YaoJGivensGDWanY. A web-services-based distributed system with browser–client architecture to promote tele-audiology assessment. Telemed J E Health2009; 15: 777–782.
21.
SwanepoelDHallJW. A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemed J E Health2010; 16: 1–20.
22.
CasonJBehlDRingwaltS. Overview of states’ use of telehealth for the delivery of early intervention (IDEA Part C) services. Int J Telerehabil2012; 4: 39–39.
23.
MashimaPADoarnCR. Overview of telehealth activities in speech-language pathology. Telemed J E Health2008; 14: 1101–1117.
24.
TheodorosD. Telepractice in speech-language pathology: The evidence, the challenges, and the future. SIG 18 Perspectives on Telepractice2011; 1: 10–21.
25.
HillAJTheodorosDGRussellTG. An Internet-based telerehabilitation system for the assessment of motor speech disorders: A pilot study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol2006; 15: 45–56.
26.
JessimanSM. Speech and language services using telehealth technology in remote and underserviced areas. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol2003; 27: 45–51.
27.
SicotteCLehouxPFortier-BlancJ. Feasibility and outcome evaluation of a telemedicine application in speech- language pathology. J Telemed Telecare2003; 9: 253–258.
28.
ForduceyP. Speech telepractice program expands options for rural Oklahoma schools. ASHA Lead2006; 11: 12–13.
29.
CherneyLRVan VuurenS. Telerehabilitation, virtual therapists, and acquired neurologic speech and language disorders. Semin Speech Lang2012; 33: 243–258.
30.
BaharavEReiserC. Using telepractice in parent training in early autism. Telemed J E Health2010; 16: 727–731.
KelsoGLFiechtlBJOlsenST. The feasibility of virtual home visits to provide early intervention: A pilot study. Infant Young Child2009; 22: 332–340.
33.
Dally K and Conway R. Invest to grow local evaluation report for RIDBC remote early learning program. Report, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, 2008.
34.
CasonJ. A pilot telerehabilitation program: Delivering early intervention services to rural families. Intl J Telerehab2009; 1: 29–37.
35.
BehlDHoustonKTGuthrieWS. Tele-intervention: The wave of the future fits families’ lives today. Exceptional Parent2010; 40: 23–28.
36.
BlaiserKMEdwardsMBehlD. Telepractice services at sound beginnings at Utah State University. Volta Rev2012; 112: 365–365.
37.
Molini-Avejonas RD, Rondon-Melo S, De la Higuera Amato CA, et al. A systematic review of the use of tele-health in speech, language and hearing sciences. J Telemed Telecare. Epub ahead of print 29 May 2015. DOI: 1357633X15583215.
38.
HershWRHelfandMWallaceJ. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine interventions: A systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2001; 1: 5–5.
39.
ConstantinescuGWaiteMDornanD. A pilot study of telepractice delivery for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare2014; 20: 135–140.
40.
BlaiserKMBehlDCallow-HeusserC. Measuring costs and outcomes of tele-intervention when serving families of children who are deaf/hard-of-hearing. Int J Telerehab2013; 5: 3–10.
41.
BessFHDodd-MurphyJParkerRA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: Prevalence, educational performance and functional status. Ear Hear1998; 19: 339–354.
GrahamO. In the garden, 1st ed. Fidgety Fingers series. Suffolk, UK: Top That Publishing, 2013.
44.
GrahamO. Animal friends, 1st ed. Fidgety Fingers series. Suffolk, UK: Top That Publishing, 2013.
45.
GrahamO. In the park, 1st ed. Fidgety Fingers series. Suffolk, UK: Top That Publishing, 2013.
46.
GrahamO. Deep blue sea, 1st ed. Fidgety Fingers series. Suffolk, UK: Top That Publishing, 2013.
47.
TaitM. Video analysis: A method of assessing changes in preverbal and early linguistic communication after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear1993; 14: 378–389.
48.
TaitMNikolopolousTPLutmanME. Video analysis of preverbal communication behaviours: Use and reliability. Deaf Educ2001; 3: 38–43.
49.
Percy-SmithL. Associations between auditory capacity, speech and language, level of communication and parental assessment of children with cochlear implant. Cochlear Implants Int2010; 11: 50–62.
50.
TaitMENikolopoulosTPWellsP. The use and reliability of Tait video analysis in assessing preverbal language skills in profoundly deaf and normally hearing children under 12 months of age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2007; 71: 1377–1382.
51.
ColeEBFlexerCA. Children with hearing loss: Developing listening and talking, birth to six, 1st ed. Oxford: Plural Publishing Inc., 2007.
52.
ConstantinescuG. Satisfaction with telemedicine for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare2012; 18: 267–272.
53.
ZajoncRB. Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2001; 10: 224–228.
