Identificeerbaarheid van kinderen met een gehoorbeperking
Een vergelijkende benadering
Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the
children’s speech production. However, it is unclear if listeners also perceive differences
between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating
the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school
teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic
hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven
years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two.
The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in
pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented
according to their overall perceived speech quality.
The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates
that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that
of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit
higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the
latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with
(hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived
speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly
preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.
Article outline
- 1.Inleiding
- Focus 1: Wel/geen gehoorbeperking
- Focus 2: Ervaring van de luisteraars
- Focus 3: Comparatieve aanpak
- 2.Methode
- 2.1Stimuli
- 2.2Luisteraars
- 2.3Luistertaak
- 2.4Dataverwerking
- 2.5Hypothesen
- Perspectief 1: Globale rangorde van de 126 uitingen
- Perspectief 2: Analyse van de afzonderlijke paarsgewijze vergelijkingen volgens hoorstatus
- Extra aandachtspunt: Ervaring van de luisteraars
- 3.Resultaten
- 3.1Globale rangorde van de 126 uitingen
- 3.2Analyse van de afzonderlijke paarsgewijze vergelijkingen volgens hoorstatus
- 4.Discussie
- 4.1Duiding van de resultaten
- 4.2Beperkingen en perspectieven
- 5.Conclusie
- Dankwoord
- Opmerking
-
Bibliografie
Article language: Dutch
References
Bibliografie
Andrich, D.
(
1982)
An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR-20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern.
Education Research and Perspectives, 9(1), 95–104.
Baayen, R. H.
(
2008)
Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baudonck, N., Van Lierde, K., D’Haeseleer, E., & Dhooge, I.
(
2015)
Nasalance and nasality in children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids.
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 79(4), 541–545.
Boonen, N., Kloots, H., Verhoeven, J., & Gillis, S.
(
2019)
Can listeners hear the difference between children with normal hearing and children with a hearing impairment? Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(4), 316-333.
Bramley, T.
(
2007)
Paired comparison methods. In
P. Newton,
J.-A. Baird,
H. Goldstein,
H. Patrick, &
P. Tymms (Eds.),
Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards (pp. 246–294). London: QCA.
Bramley, T.
(
2015)
Investigating the reliability of Adaptive Comparative Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment Research Report.
Chin, S. B., & Kuhns, M. J.
(
2014)
Proximate factors associated with speech intelligibility in children with cochlear implants: A preliminary study.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(7–8), 532–542.
Crystal, D.
(
2003)
A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ertmer, D. J.
(
2007)
Speech intelligibility in young cochlear implant recipients: Gains during year three.
The Volta Review, 107(2), 85–99.
Fang, H.-Y., Ko, H.-C., Wang, N.-M., Fang, T.-J., Chao, W.-C., Tsou, Y.-T., & Wu, C.-M.
(
2014)
Auditory performance and speech intelligibility of Mandarin-speaking children implanted before age 5.
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 78(5), 799–803.
Flipsen, P., & Colvard, L. G.
(
2006)
Intelligibility of conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(2), 93–108.
Gillis, S.
(
2017)
Speech and language in congenitally deaf children with a cochlear implant. In
A. Bar-On, &
D. Ravid (Eds.),
Handbook of communication disorders: Theoretical, empirical, and applied linguistic perspectives (pp. 763–790). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Hide, Ø.
(
2013)
Acoustic features of speech by young cochlear implant users. A comparison with normal-hearing and hearing-aided age mates. Ongepubliceerd proefschrift, Universiteit Antwerpen.
Kral, A., & O’Donoghue, G.
(
2010)
Profound deafness in childhood.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(15), 1438–1450.
Kral, A., & Sharma, A.
(
2012)
Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation.
Trends in Neurosciences, 35(2), 111–122.
Laming, D.
(
2004)
Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. Hongkong: Thomson Learning.
Lesterhuis, M., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Van Daal, T., Van Gasse, R., Coertjens, L., Verhavert, S., Mortier, A., Coenen, T., Vlerick, P., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P.
(
2015)
Competenties kwaliteitvol beoordelen: brengt een comparatieve aanpak soelaas? Tijdschrift voor hoger onderwijs, 33(2), 55–67.
Lesterhuis, M., Verhavert, S., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S.
(
2017)
Comparative judgment as a promising alternative to score competences. In
E. Cano, &
G. Ion (Eds.),
Innovative practices for higher education assessment and measurement (pp. 119–138). Hershey: IGI Global.
McGarr, N.
(
1983)
The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26(3), 451–458.
Miller, N.
(
2013)
Measuring up to speech intelligibility.
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(6), 601–612.
Munson, B., Johnson, J. M., & Edwards, J.
(
2012)
The role of experience in the perception of phonetic detail in children’s speech: A comparison between speech-language pathologists and clinically untrained listeners.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 124–139.
Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E.
(
2007)
Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 1048–1062.
Pollitt, A.
(
2012)
Comparative judgement for assessment.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–170.
R Core Team
(
2016)
R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienne, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. [
[URL]]
Thurstone, L.
(
1927)
A law of comparative judgment.
Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. Herdrukt in
Psychological Review
1994, 101(2), 266–270.
Van Lierde, K. M., Vinck, B. M., Baudonck, N., De Vel, E., & Dhooge, I.
(
2005)
Comparison of the overall intelligibility, articulation, resonance, and voice characteristics between children using cochlear implants and those using bilateral hearing aids: A pilot study.
International Journal of Audiology, 44(8), 452–465.
Vanormelingen, L., De Maeyer, S., & Gillis, S.
Verhoeven, J., Hide, Ø., De Maeyer, S., Gillis, S., & Gillis, S.
(
2016)
Hearing impairment and vowel production. A comparison between normally hearing, hearing-aided and cochlear implanted Dutch children.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 591, 24–39.
Whitehouse, C., & Pollitt, A.
(
2012)
Using Adaptive Comparative Judgement to obtain a highly reliable rank order in summative assessment. Gedownload via
[URL] [07.02.2019]. Manchester: Centre for Education Research and Policy.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Morris, David Jackson & Daan Velde
2021.
The Handbook of Language and Speech Disorders,
► pp. 53 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.