A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Early Intervention and the Role of Parents in Language Development of Hearing Loss Children

Objectives: Deaf and hard-of-hearing children are slow in language development, and language deficits are common in hearing-impaired children. Here, all areas of the language, including syntax, morphology, phonology, semantic and pragmatic, are involved, and this leads to a deficiency in reading and academic skills. Evidence shows that through early intervention, we can minimize or eliminate problems of children with hearing loss. Early intervention teaches parents how to communicate with their disabled child. Methods: Internet search in databases including ISI Web of Knowledge, Embase and Pubmed from 1990 to 2014 was conducted. Key words such as children with hearing loss, deaf children, hard-of-hearing, family education program(s), early intervention, early detection, family’s approach, parent’s approach, and parent’s education program(s) were searched. Results: A total of 100 articles were initially found, and only 20 articles were finally selected for the study. The inclusion criteria for the study were as follows: the article should be interventional and written in English and should be published between 1990 and 2014. Discussion: Research showed the effectiveness of early intervention in the early development of language and vocabulary. In addition, early detection of hearing loss in the first 6 months of age has a positive impact on children and families interactions and consequently, on language and vocabulary development. The primary focus in the implementation of early intervention services is to reduce the negative effects of risk factors and facilitate optimum development over time. Finally, the combination of early diagnosis and early intervention for children with hearing impairment is necessary

Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Aphasia Check List in Persian Speakers With Aphasia

Introduction: The Aphasia Check List (ACL) is a comprehensive, time-saving tool for language evaluation in aphasia, including a cognitive assessment part. This cross-sectional study aimed to translate ACL into Persian and analyze the psychometric features of the translated version. The original version of the ACL was translated and adapted from German; its psychometric features were then determined.  Methods: Twenty People With Aphasia (PWA) and 50 age- and education-matched, cognitively healthy controls participated in this research. Possible floor and ceiling effects, discriminant validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the test were analyzed in addition to the evaluation of internal correlations between the test parts (language & cognition). Results: Regarding the performance of PWAs in the language section and the cognitive subtests assessing attention, memory, and reasoning, there were no floor and ceiling effects. Adequate discriminant validities for the language section of the test [i.e., total score: (Mann-Whitney U= 6.000, P<0.001); diagnostic subtests scores: (Mann-Whitney U= 3.000, P<0.001), and each subtest individually. Besides, the attention subtest of the cognition section (Mann-Whitney U= 16.500, P<0.001) was also observed. There was no difference between the control and patient groups in the subtests of memory (Mann-Whitney U= 497.500, P=0.973) and reasoning (Mann-Whitney U= 3.000, P= 308). The test-retest reliability was acceptable in all subtests (ICC agreement= 0.573-0.984). The ACL-P suggested appropriate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient= 0.761 for test & retest scores). There were also significant correlations between language and cognition in the control and patient groups. Conclusion: The ACL-P test indicated sufficient reliability and validity for the evaluation of Persian-speaking PWAs and is suggested to be used in studies on this population