INTRODUCTION

1. Expressive Language Development in Children with Cochlear Implants Peter Flipsen Jr., Ph.D.&Kathleen Kangas, Ph.D.Idaho State University ASHA Convention, 2010 Philadelphia, PA • INTRODUCTION • Both Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) and number of different words may be crucial to differentiating among language impairments in certain clinical groups (Redmond, 2004). • The current longitudinal study looked at the emergence of these variables in the conversational speech of five children with cochlear implants. • Research questions were: • 1. Does Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) increase with implant experience? • 2. How does MLU relate to that of normal-hearing children initially and over time? • 3. Does the number of different words in conversational speech increase with implant experience? • METHOD • Participants (see also Table 1) • All five children received a single implant by age 3 years. • All were prelingually and bilaterally deaf with no other known handicaps. All achieved a std. score of at least 70 on the PPVT-III. All used spoken language only (i.e., no signing). • METHOD (cont’d) • The children were tested three times over 4 years. Ages initially ranged from 3;9 to 6;2 (Mn = 5;1); by time 3 ages ranged from 7;9 to 10;6 (Mn = 9;4). • Implant experience initially ranged from 2;2 to 3;6 (Mn = 2;10); at time 2 it ranged from 3;5 to 5;1 (Mn = 4;5), and at time 3 it ranged from 6;1 to 7;10 (Mn = 7;0). • Samples and Analysis • With one exception (where only 62 were available), results were based on conversational speech samples of 80 complete and intelligible utterances. • All 15 samples were analyzed using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2008). • DISCUSSION (cont’d) • MLU values were initially noticeably behind those of normal-hearing, typically-developing children. After about 7 years of implant experience however, MLU values were much closer to normal when referenced to implant experience (a similar trend was also observed relative to chronological age). • This suggested the children were “catching up” to their normal-hearing, typically-developing peers. • REFERENCES • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test – third edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. • Huttenlocher, J., et al. (in press). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 • Miller, J. & Iglesias, A. (2008). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), Instructional Version 2008 [Computer Software], SALT Software, LLC. • Redmond, S.M. (2004). Conversational profiles of children with ADHD, SLI, and typical development. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 18, 107-125. • Rice, M.L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 333-349. • RESULTS (cont’d) • Number of Different Words • As shown in Fig. 3, the number of different words in the samples increased significantly as the children gained experience with their implants. • DISCUSSION • Consistent with normal-hearing, typically-developing children, both MLU (cf. Rice et al., 2010) and the number of different words (cf. Huttenlocher et al., in press) increased with auditory experience. • RESULTS • Mean Length of Utterance • As shown in Fig. 1, MLU in words was strongly and positively correlated with amount of implant experience. (i.e., experience with near-normal auditory acuity). • MLU values were then converted to z-scores relative to data from Rice et al. (2010). Implant experience was used as a proxy for age. • As shown in Fig. 2, z-scores significantly improved (i.e., approached 0) as the children gained additional auditory experience. Table 1. Study Participants ParticipantGenderAge of IDaImplantation Agea Implant TypeInitial Implant Experiencea PPVT-III Std Scoreb 1 F 0;8 2;4 Clarion 2;11 89 3 F 1;0 3;0 Clarion 3;2 72 4 F 0;3 2;0 Nucleus 3;6 77 5 F 1;3 2;7 Clarion 2;3 81 6 M 0;11 1;8 Nucleus 2;2 76 a Expressed in years;months. b Standard Score on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Acknowledgments Many thanks to Julie Beeler, Velvet Buehler, Molly Erickson, Mark Hedrick, Marge Hudson, Gayla Hutsell, Kim Jenkins, Leslie Jolles, and Saneta Thurman for their assistance. Special thanks to Lana Colvard (time 1), Michelle LaGesse (time 2), and Rhonda Parker (time 3) for participant testing, to Joel Blaiss and Lisa Moss for speech transcription, and to Angela Clegg and Erin Harty for SALT transcription. Many thanks also to the children and their parents who participated.