Reference information:

Coulter, Diane K., Mehl, Albert L., Sedey, Allison L., & Yoshinaga-Itano.
(1998). Language of early and later-identified children with
hearing loss. Pediatrics, 102(5). Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org.
Topics addressed:
This source addressed language abilities amongst children who had
been diagnosed with a hearing loss before age six months, and
compared it to children who had been diagnosed with a hearing loss
after six months.
Summary (include question, participants, methods, results)
The study focused comparing the language abilities of earlier- and
later-identified deaf and hard-of-hearing children; particularly in the
expressive and receptive language categories. The participants
included 150 deaf and hard of hearing children living in Colorado. They
were anywhere from 1 year, 1 month to 3 years, 0 months of age with
the average age being 2 years, 2 months. The children all had
congenital bilateral hearing losses and were split into two groups
based on age at the time the loss was identified and then divided into
four groups based on age of testing. The study was done using the
1974 version of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory (MCDI).
The MCDI assessed development of children from six months to six and
a half years old. The MCDI consisted of 320 items divided into eight
scales, all of which evaluated different areas of development. The
primary caregiver had to indicate which behaviors they had observed
in their child and also interacted with the child for 25 minutes in order
for an MLU to be found. The study found that children whose hearing
losses were identified by six months of age had notably better
language scores than those whose hearing losses were identified after
six months of age. There werent any extraordinary differences
between the children of normal cognitive ability despite age, gender,
communication mode, socioeconomic status, minority status and
degree of hearing loss. There were however, differences amongst
those of normal cognitive abilities and those who had a disability or
more in the areas of age, gender, and age of onset.
Assess: (follow link for assessment questions)
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/
This article discussed the study in-depth although it was an extremely
specific topic, explained in a professional matter. The article was
written by professionals who did a study with the intention of
discussing the impact of finding a hearing loss early on in life versus
later. Overall, the article seemed to be credible with a professional
study and manner in which data was collected.
Reflect:

(How was this source helpful? How does it change how you think about
this topic? How does it support or argue your topic?
This source was helpful because it compared the language skills of
children whose hearing losses were identified early in life versus later
in life. It gave information on the impact that hearing loss can have on
a persons ability to learn throughout life. It thoroughly supported my
view on identification of hearing loss. I assumed that if found earlier, a
hearing loss would negatively impact a child less than if found later on
in life. It also showed me that even with the technology that we have,
deaf students graduate from high school with language and academic
skills lower than the average fourth grade hearing student. It also
informed me that hard-of-hearing children graduate with reading
scores below that of the average hearing fifth grader. The entire article
furthered my belief in address children with hearing loss earlier in life
so that they are able to go through life with the same language
abilities as a hearing person.
Annotated Bibliography Worksheet CDIS 402
(Adapted from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/01/)