archive-com.com » COM » H » HARDOFHEARINGCHILDREN.COM

Total: 76

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • FM's are Wonderful !
    provides better information from the speaker The microphone or mike There are several models of microphones for FM s The ones which the teachers like the best have a lariat which hangs around the neck because they are comfortable and discreet When I am listening to a speaker using a lariat mike I cannot hear anything when the speaker turns their head because the signal drops drastically I think the lariat mikes should be taken off the market because they do not work well enough Once I was listening to Carol Flexer speak at a parent s conference She was provided with a lariat mike and half of what she said was unintelligible to me whenever she turned her head I also had no idea what the questions were for a discussion after Several years later people with questions had to use a microphone so the questions were broadcast to the whole room The group was providing a written text from speech on a screen behind the speaker which was reasonably accurate most of the time and occasionally ridiculous In this environment which was mostly parents of deaf children planning to get cochlear implants the acoustics should certainly be examined so that a hard of hearing parent can hear the speakers because we were in a room which temporarily contained a million dollars worth of personal sound equipment The room like many public meeting rooms does not ordinarily provide adequate sound although there is a public address system And it is even worse in a court where the lack of awareness of hearing disabilities provides no compensation for people who cannot hear pins drop Scott Simser a Canadian lawyer is working on that FM s are needed at home too When Reid was little I heard about FM s and suggested I would like one at home as mom who did all the speaking and spent my life about two feet from my child s ear maintaining good auditory input It was suggested that a FM on mom would interfere in that close relationship between parent and child FM s were for school not for parents My book Not Deaf Enough included my needs for a FM at home which was radical suggestion and many kids now have FM s at home because of my continued promotion of the FM It is really very simple if you need a hearing aid you also need a FM It is my personal experience that you need adaptive technology like the FM before you need hearing aids as you progress from normal hearing through mildly hard of hearing We had a child in our school who was older than my son who only put his hearing aids on for story time which just does not construe logically If the child needed hearing aids he needed them all the time at home and at school and if the child needed hearing aids for story time he really needed a FM because the hearing aids would not work at a distance Assess the environment for the non hearing situations and learn to use the adaptive technology properly in order to be heard better by the hard of hearing child As the child gets more savvy with equipment the child can decide which is going to work best for the situation For example Reid has a choice of table mike or head mounted mike on the teacher and he is certainly old enough to decide which piece of equipment is best for this point in time However he can never assess what he does not hear no one can a point Carol Flexer makes over and over At school the speaker must wear the mike at home the speaker must wear the mike Anytime except swimming and in bed a FM can overcome distance and the implications of earshot The single most important reason for us to have a FM at home right now is for learning to drive Reid s deaf ear is on the right and his hard of hearing ear is on the left so when he is driving he will have some information from the driver s side ear As he is learning to drive he cannot hear the passenger teacher say You are driving too fast So the FM makes learning to drive easier and it would have been nice when he was little and refusing to wear his seat belt because he never heard me in the car Using the FM properly Example Effect Worst FM in desk or broken use the Ling Sound test to check equipment Bad Teacher How much are 2 plus 2 Little Johnny answers 4 not heard by little Reid Teacher That s right How much are 2 plus 3 Little Sally answers 5 not heard by little Reid Reid does not hear the answer because it is not said into the microphone Reid does not hear the answer because it is not said into the microphone The net effect of this is that Reid has missed most of the communication in a classroom despite wearing a FM from kindergarten on Better Teacher How much are 2 plus 2 Little Johnny answers 4 not heard by little Reid Teacher repeats That s right 2 plus 2 are 4 Then little Reid might have heard the question twice and the answer once He never heard any answers in class because it was thought that only the teacher was the important speaker In 1997 I lectured to itinerant hoh specialist teachers demonstrating this point Best Teacher How much are 2 plus 2 Little Harold 4 not heard by little Reid Teacher 2 plus 2 are 4 That s right the right information in the right order You have to make sure that you are repeating the right information in the right order If you have a favorite thing to say which is a mild platitude for a correct answer then the child on the FM is hearing

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/fm%27s_are_wonderful.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Memorable Assaults on my Hearing
    Simplified We know that listening to a noise makes the little hairs on the hearing nerve carve a pattern for that noise If the noise is too loud it damages that sound and our ear gets used to the sound If it happens to be a sound that we like we turn the sound up to get the same effect This is a complex physical chemical reaction which explains why we keep making sounds louder and louder On the outside of the body is the rest of the world with an acoustic wash which changes Hearing is such a complex operation I notice this effect when good old music comes on the radio and it is never loud enough When the kids music comes on the radio it is always too loud Too Loud Music at Party My hearing was severely damaged at a company Christmas party twenty five years ago It was a lovely dinner with dancing after The sound seemed to be turned up louder and louder but we were all yelling at each other and having a good time dancing I went to the bathroom and when I went back into the room after the acoustic break in the bathroom my ears just could not crank back up to the level of dealing with the sound which was blaring compared to being in the room The pain in my ears was like knives into my brain I put my hands over my ears and announced that I did not care that the president and his wife had not left therefore I could not leave I was nine months pregnant and probably the only person who was not drunk too Is there a correlation between enduring more louder noise with alcohol in the blood too and less when hung over Personal Acoustic Alarm About ten years ago a store had an acoustic alarm which they were demonstrating at the cash This thing went off when I was holding it and it was so loud that I pitched it right across the store I felt sick from the noise and fear fright sequence which it set off while the stupid cashier was trying to tell me that I had to buy it because I had thrown it School Dances I became a critic about excessive noise long ago Every year I would arrive at school dances and be appalled at how loud the speakers were cranked up Impossible to talk possibly that was the point The principal knew what I was going to say and would hide Often he would say It s just for one day but having a hearing loss affects your whole life I would point to Reid s hearing aid and advise him to buy shares in a hearing aid company because all the children were going to be deafened I think the education profession should be leading the way in protecting hearing and if the speakers were turned down at the school dances it

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/perhaps_you_can_learn_from_my_li.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Hearing Aid Technology 2004
    was The sound card on my last computer had different sound scapes from a bathroom to a vast hall Listening to the same sound in a different scape made a very different sound Odious Feedback lousy sound in the 1970 s My Auntie Kay had BTE hearing aids in the 1970 s which squeaked from feedback all the time We had not learned the better way to talk with a person using hearing aids so we yelled at her from across the living room instead of sitting close and facing her With my hearing aids in her ears Auntie Kay would be in 7 th heaven because she loved people so much and she was vitally interested in what people were saying Helen Keller said that deafness cut a person off from people Auntie Kay fought with that for her entire life Quack Quack Quack in 1990 I had to laugh because I saw a brochure in the hearing aid dealers office which had a duck on it and asked Does your hearing aid quack Reid had an aid from that company for 3 years from age 2 to 5 which quacked all the time and spent 1 full year of its life being repaired It quacked because it was all the technology could do in an ear with a profound hearing loss But I kept listening to the hearing aid and asking How is my son supposed to learn how to talk English when all he hears is quack quack quack No Quacks I can tell you that my hearing aids do not quack unless I am with a duck To hear after 10 years of not hearing was such extreme joy that I was incapable of writing about it The closest I can come is to refer to the movie Immortal Beloved about Beethoven when the ninth symphony was playing and the spirit soared to the moon the stars the sky the universe I immediately thought how Beethoven would have liked my new hearing aids a lot Mixed in that joy was such anger that my hearing was not important enough to our society that I had to cope with increasing deafness for 10 years My Hearing Aids are Fantastic CI s removed the need for hearing aids which were capable of being very loud so the hearing aids of today for mild moderate and severe losses are elegant with wonderful sound I also have a fundamental understanding of the need for the FM to reduce the effect of earshot and got a microlink built in the hearing aids and a handimike Now when I go to the doctors I can stick the handimike into his face and hear what he has to say maybe I don t want to hear that I can also hear all the people who have soft voices in my life There is a big difference though between me and the average person getting hearing aids according to my hearing aid dealer I

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/i_was_watching_a_program_on_tv_w.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Thesis by Heather McDonald
    pure tone tests do not test for hearing acuity against background noise raises the question of how this real life listening ability is tested and who conducts these tests and who has access to this assessment central auditory function The ability to hear against background noise has been considered a central auditory function rather than a sensory function thus audiologists who assess central auditory processing deficits use some specific tests for this purpose Ferre and Bellis include the detection of children with difficulty hearing against background noise as part of their Central Auditory Processing Disorder CAPD testing battery Central Auditory Processing tests are used to test children thought to have difficulty understanding the meaning of incoming sounds Central auditory processing is not considered an impairment of hearing reception or reduced hearing sensitivity as children are screened so that only the children with normal hearing sensitivity are given CAPD tests This means that in current practice a child is only screened for their ability to hear against background noise when they have a CAPD test This anomaly between the availability of standard audiological testing compared to the more realistic and therefore more informative tests of hearing ability formed part of the motivation for conducting the present study question the validity of audiological results in regard to their valid extrapolation into the students educational environment The present study was undertaken due to my interest in the controversies mentioned above surrounding audiological tests classroom acoustics and the hearing abilities each individual brings to the classroom My initial interest was stimulated from the experience of my son whom was 6 years old and in Grade 1 when he was described by his teacher as underachieving academically In addition to other observations his teacher complained that when the whole class was given instructions he would wait for other students to get the right books for him and to tell him what to do During the following 10 months I had the opportunity to witness seven different audiological assessments These experiences led me to question the validity of the audiological procedures including the subjectivity of the audiological examination and the use of the pure tone test in silence as the adjudicator of hearing ability In particular this led me to question the validity of audiological results in regard to their valid extrapolation into the students educational environment Through my studies in Literacy I learned of the Goldman Fristoe Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination 1970 G F W which did not require an audiologist to assess hearing acuity against background noise Aims and purposes The aims and purposes of this study were to find out how many children in grades one and two of a typical Australian primary school have difficulty hearing against background noise and to determine if there were any behavioural effects of this difficulty as perceived by their teachers and parent s caregiver s A further aim was to find out how much noise was generated in these classrooms during a normal school day during various activities The research setting The research was conducted in a metropolitan state primary school in Adelaide The school is situated in a lower socio economic suburb The 103 students who participated in this study were in either Grade 1 or 2 The age and English as a second language status was provided by the primary school all other data came from the children parent s caregiver s or where applicable the teachers The Research Questions The first major research question was to determine the percentage of children in an ordinary school population who after at least one or more years of schooling have difficulty hearing against background noise The second major research question was whether there was a relationship between a child s hearing acuity against background noise and their classroom behaviours as perceived by their teachers The third research question was whether there was a relationship between a child s hearing acuity against background noise and their behaviours at home as noticed by their parent s caregiver s The fourth research question was to determine the levels of background noise Australian school children were exposed to during various classroom activities CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHOD PARTICIPANTS The participants were obtained from a school population which was selected from a lower socio economic area of Adelaide There was a possible population of 127 children enrolled in grade 1 and 2 at this school with all 127 given the opportunity to participate through an addressed package to the parent s caregiver s of each child Contained in this package see appendix B were two letters of introduction about the study along with the parent s caregiver s questionnaire and consent form An initial total of 65 completed questionnaires and consent forms were returned within a few weeks of the initial distribution A second distribution of the same package was sent in the same manner to the remaining 64 children and a further 39 children returned their consent forms and the completed parent s caregiver s questionnaire By the end of the study 103 children were administered the Goldman Fristoe Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination This method of sampling is considered an opportunity sample however as the sample came from the whole school population of grade 1 and 2 children extrapolation to other similar populations could be valid There were no significant differences in the gender breakdown of the participants with 49 being female and 51 male Year One students comprised 54 of the participants with the remaining 46 being Year Two students Ninety three percent of the participants were aged between 6 years and 7 years 11 months Students for whom English is a second language ESL comprised only 9 of the participants TEST INSTRUMENTS Parent s caregiver s Questionnaire The parent s caregiver s Questionnaire appendix B was developed by the researcher in consultation with my supervisor Due to the time constraint of the Honours year including the need to get multiple ethic committee s approval for the use of the test instruments the items were prepared after a preliminary survey of the literature on hearing loss and central auditory processing deficits The questionnaire was divided into two sections one on the incidence of hearing tests hearing problems speech or language difficulties colds ear infections and whether the child had ever had a grommit placed in the ear The second part of the questionnaire was a behavioural survey labelled Listening This section included 7 questions and originally employed a three point scale Occasionally Sometimes and Constantly Once the data had been collected an alpha test was conducted which indicated that internal consistency was high suggesting that all items were measuring a common domain The items were found to be internally consistent with an overall alpha value of 6962 By removing the question about Play the alpha increased to 7342 Test retest reliability construct and criterion validity of the measurements were not tested due to time constraints however these could be tested in future studies Teacher Questionnaire The teacher questionnaire appendix B was designed by the researcher in consultation with my supervisor Due to the time constraint of the Honours year including the need to get multiple ethic committee s approval for the use of the test instruments the items were made up after only a preliminary survey of the literature on hearing loss Many of the items are similar to those in Berry which provides teacher tips for identifying a possible hearing impaired child One of the notable exceptions is that Berry did not mention the mispronunciation of words as an indicator Once the data had been collected an alpha test see appendix C was conducted which indicated that internal consistency was high with an alpha value of 863 suggesting that all items were measuring a common domain S I F T E R Subsequent to the development and implementation of the questionnaire an instrument called the S I F T E R has been located which was developed for teachers to use and was designed to sift out students who are educationally at risk possibly as a result of hearing problems There are 15 items on the S I F T E R instrument which are divided into five areas with 3 questions relating to each area The five areas include academics attention communication class behaviour and school behaviour Five Items on the fifteen item S I F T E R are very similar to six of the items on the teacher questionnaire developed for this study They include Table 2 1Similarities between the S I F T E R Questionnaire and the Teacher Questionnaire S I F T E R items Teacher Questionnaire items This student 4 How distractible is the student in comparison to his her classmates attention is easily distracted during class activities 6 How often does the student hesitate or become confused when responding to oral directions e g Turn to page attention waits and observes what others are doing before starting 10 How often does the student volunteer information to class discussions or in answer to teacher questions class participation contributes to class discussions 12 After instruction does the student have difficulty starting to work looks at other students working or asks for help class participation seeks guidance from others 15 In general how would you rank the student s relationship with peers ability to get along with others school behaviour plays with others at recess and lunch works well in groups The S I F T E R instrument has a five point scale whereas the teacher questionnaire used a four point scale of never occasionally often and always The additional behavioural items on the questionnaire developed for this study may have provided more precise information about the existence of a hearing problem especially as the S I F T E R did not have an item regarding the mispronunciation of words In addition academic results were deliberately left out of the present questionnaire as these can be caused by a multitude of factors especially at this young age and therefore could have confounded the data Goldman Fristoe Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination The Goldman Fristoe Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination G F W was used in the present research project because of its design construct validity concurrent validity internal consistency and test retest reliability as purported in their manual that comes with the test Goldman et al 1970 pp15 31 Another reason for using this test was because it has been reported to be used extensively with children aged 4 years and over Because of the tests design the authors state that the effect of extraneous factors upon the test performance of subjects on the G F W has been reduced to the extent that any ambiguity which the subject experiences in the test situation would seem to reflect difficulty in auditory discrimination Goldman et al 1970 p 9 Controlling for factors other than auditory discrimination is a major concern for test developers and the G F W Goldman et al 1970 p 7 test minimizes these by Using a different aspect of memory and avoiding the rather artificial type of auditory memory task found in many tests The adequacy of the stimulus materials in terms of meaningfulness and familiarity for the subject is evaluated through use of the training plates The administration of the two subtests is controlled through the use of a pre recorded tape Thus it is expected that the use of the G F W was a valid and appropriate test to use with the present research sample because it was designed and normed against children of this age and because it uses a pictorial presentation requires the respondent to only point which eliminates an articulation variable and incorporates the use of a training procedure which moderates any special problems that may arise form unfamiliarity with any of the pictures Equipment A standard tape player was used Panasonic RX FS430 without earphones This was acceptable as the room was quiet The G F W test manual recommends the use of high quality ear phones however they state that it is also acceptable to use a speaker without any significant degradation of performance on the Noise Subtest and it may result in somewhat poorer performance on the quiet subtest Goldman et al 1970 p 10 The volume control of the tape player was set at a comfortable level of loudness It was calibrated to a level of 65 dBA as suggested Goldman et al 1970 p 12 using a Sound Level Meter and the calibration tone provided on the G F W pre recorded tape DESIGN Parent s caregiver s were requested to agree to their child rens participation in this study and at the same time they were requested to complete a questionnaire about their child ren s aural health history and hearing behaviours Out of a possible population of 127 children 103 parents consented and returned the questionnaire The seven classroom teachers were requested to complete a questionnaire for 65 of these children It was decided at the inception of the study to limit the number questionnaires for the teachers to complete This was to ensure that the teachers would not be overtaxed with work and therefore be able to give more energy to the completion of the questionnaires that they were given To approximate a random selection the teachers completed the questionnaires for all of the children whom had returned their questionnaire and approval form by the end of week 7 of Term 2 The teachers completed this task by the end of week 9 Term 2 In order to check for any bias in the group that was selected for the teacher questionnaire a Chi Square analysis was completed on various attributes see appendix E There were no significant differences between the group of children who were selected to be reported on by the teachers and the children who were not reported on in any of the attributes assessed e g difficulty hearing against background noise whether they had ever had their hearing tested or had reported hearing or speech language problems or number of ear infections The only category that approached significance was gender with slightly more girls being represented than boys 55 girls and 45 boys Χ 2 3 3 df 1 p 07 The testing procedure Students were taken from their class one at a time and brought to a small open room at the side of the staff room The staff room wasn t in use during the testing and therefore the testing was done in quiet conditions Most of the testing was conducted between 9 30am and 1pm with only a small number of students tested between 1 45 and 2 15pm This was partly due to concern that students could be affected by the time of day with students tested in the afternoon being more fatigued than the students tested in the morning After suitable rapport was gained with the student the training procedure was started This took about 8 minutes per student to complete As instructed in the G F W manual the students were given as much training as they required before testing Goldman et al 1970 p 9 Most children sped through this section as they understood all the vocabulary used A small number of the younger children needed the shack cab and tack word picture associations to be trained They all achieved mastery before starting the subtests Upon completion of the Training Procedure the testing procedure was begun The entire test procedure took 7½ minutes once the tape had been started The Quiet Subtest was given first with the instructions given to the child via the tape I will say a word Then I want you to put your finger on the picture of the word I have said Point to cash After the 30 items were tested on the Quiet Subtest the Noise Subtest commenced Every child appeared to be listening carefully and trying hard with many children leaning towards the sound source to hear better After completion each child was asked what they thought of it and most said that it was fun while others felt it was a bit hard and some easy At the completion the student could choose a sticker and was then asked to collect the next student from their class Scoring Scoring was done by recording the number of errors on the response form see appendix D When a participant was unable to make a choice on a given test plate the examiner left the appropriate space on the response form blank and this was counted as an error in accordance with the manual procedures Goldman et al 1970 p 13 Interpretation The norms from appendix C were used for the present study as these are recommended by the authors to be of most use in research applications Goldman et al 1970 p 14 They state that The norms presented in Appendix C presents percentile rank norms the values of which have been calculated to the midpoint of each raw score interval This is the generally accepted statistical definition of a percentile score Goldman et al 1970 p 14 The data was analysed using two cutting scores as recommended by the authors that placing cutting scores for a group at around the 20 th to 30 th percentile will do a rather efficient job of selecting those subjects who have auditory discrimination problems while at the same time selecting a minimum of those who do not have auditory discrimination problems As auditory discrimination improves with age children of different ages required a different number of errors in order to be classified as having an auditory discrimination difficulty Table 2 2 shows how many errors were needed in order to be included in the group of children who had difficulty discriminating words against background noise 30 th percentile and those children with substantial difficulty discriminating words against background noise the 20 th percentile Each subtest had a possible score of 30 Table 2 2 Number of Errors required to be classified as having Difficulty and Substantial Difficulty Discriminating Words Against Background Noise AGE Difficulty 30 th percentile Number of Errors Substantial Difficulty 20 th percentile Number of Errors 5 6 to 5 11 14 15 6 0 to 6 5 13 14 6 6 to 6 11 12 14 7 0 to 7 11 11 13 8 0 to 8 11 11 12 The following table Table 2 3 shows how many errors were needed in order to be classified as having difficulty discriminating words in quiet at both the 30 th and 20 th percentile Each subtest had a possible score of 30 Table 2 3 Number of Errors required to be classified as having Difficulty Discriminating Words in quiet conditions at the 20 th and 30 th percentiles AGE Difficulty at 30 th percentile Number of Errors Substantial Difficulty 20 th percentile Number of Errors 5 6 to 5 11 4 5 6 0 to 6 5 3 4 6 6 to 6 11 3 4 7 0 to 7 11 3 3 8 0 to 8 11 2 3 Reporting to the parent s caregiver s The percentile scores used to report to the parent s caregiver s were the ones recommended For General Use by the G F W manual The raw scores were converted to Percentile Scores To Upper Limit Of Score Intervals as per the norms presented in Appendix E Goldman et al 1970 p 30 31 Parent s caregiver s were given general information about hearing and classroom acoustics Parent s caregiver s of children with significant difficulties as detected within this current study were offered specific advice Sound Level Measurements A sound level measure SLM instrument Type 2 with an A rating and slow response was used to determine the sound level measurement of the seven classrooms The procedures advised by Crandell and Smaldino were followed Readings were taken at various points within the seven classrooms when the teachers were reading a standard book passage to the children and in silence both with and without air conditioning systems on SLM s were also taken when classes were involved in small group activities DATA ANALYSIS The raw scores from the G F W were converted to the percentile scores These percentile scores were then analysed using frequencies to determine the number of children with difficulty discriminating words against background noise The percentile scores were then recoded to group all of the scores into two nominal groups those children with a percentile score of 31 or more coded with a 1 and those children with a percentile of 30 and below coded with a 2 These groups were labelled Children without difficulty hearing against background noise Children with difficulty hearing against background noise The percentile scores were recoded a second time to group all of the scores into two different nominal groups those children with a percentile score of 21 or more coded with a 1 and those children with a percentile of 20 and below coded with a 2 This coding gave the categories of Children without substantial difficulty hearing against background noise Children with substantial difficulty hearing against background noise Frequencies were also obtained for the data gathered from the teacher and parent s caregiver s questionnaire The coding scheme is detailed in appendix B Chi Square Χ 2 Tests were used to determine the relationship between the various nominal data categories Due to the restrictions in the use of the Χ 2 test when the data was computed to have one degree of freedom df and the expected frequency in any of the cells were less than 5 or when there were more than 1 df and the expected frequency in more than 20 of the cells was less than 5 the Fisher s exact test statistic was reported Most of the statistics reported were for two tailed tests however if the one tailed result was reported this was indicated Teacher responses and parent caregiver responses each had four categories that the respondents could mark However there were too few responses in some of the categories to compute the Chi Square statistic so the data was combined and recoded The teacher questionnaire categories Never and Occasionally were combined as was Often and Always On the parent s caregiver s questionnaire the response categories to the questions asked under Listening were combined No and Occasionally were combined and Sometimes and Constantly were combined CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Research Question 1 What percentage of children in an ordinary school population who after at least one or more years of schooling have difficulty hearing against background noise Seventy percent of the sample had difficulty hearing against background noise and 38 percent had substantial difficulty hearing against background noise as noted in table 3 1 below Table 3 1 Results of the Goldman Fristoe Woodcox Test of Auditory Discrimination Noise subtest Percentage who had difficulty discriminating words against background noise 30 Th Percentile 1 70 Percentage who had substantial difficulty discriminating words against background noise 20 th Percentile 2 38 1 These percentages were determined by counting the number of children who obtained enough errors to qualify for the 30 th percentile cut off according to the G F W norms This effectively meant those children who had between 11 and 13 errors out of 30 test items depending on age 2 These percentages were determined by counting the number of children who obtained enough errors to qualify for the 20 th percentile cut off according to the G F W norms This effectively meant those children who had between 13 and 14 errors out of 30 test items depending on age There were no statistically significant gender differences and difficulty discriminating words against background noise Testing word discrimination against silence was included as the first subtest after the training procedure The results are described in table 3 2 Table 3 2 Results of the Goldman Fristoe Woodcox Test of Auditory Discrimination Quiet subtest Percentage who had difficulty discriminating words in quiet conditions at the 30 Th Percentile 1 53 Percentage who had difficulty discriminating words in quiet conditions at the 20 th Percentile 2 37 1 These percentages were determined by counting the number of children who obtained enough errors to qualify for the 30 th percentile cut off according to the G F W norms This effectively meant those children who had between 2 and 4 errors out of 30 test items depending on age 2 These percentages were determined by counting the number of children who obtained enough errors to qualify for the 20 th percentile cut off according to the G F W norms This effectively meant those children who had between 3 and 5 errors out of 30 test items depending on age Research question 2 Is there a relationship between a child s hearing acuity against background noise and their classroom behaviours as perceived by their teachers The results of Chi Square tests showed a statistically significant relationship was found between several of the behaviours as perceived by the classroom teachers and the children with substantial difficulty hearing against background noise The results pertaining to this group of children are in Table 3 3 below The relationship between the questionnaire items and the DSM IV classification of ADHD Inattentive Subtype is included in the table and a ü is entered where an item could be classified as a behaviour that is classified as ADHD I behaviour Table 3 3 Results of the Chi Square Test between the Teacher Questionnaire results and Children with SUBSTANTIAL difficulty hearing against background noise the relationship between these behaviours and the DSM IV Classification of ADHD I subtype Questions answered by the Teacher This student More Likely Less Likely Significance df ADHD I Subtype contributes to class discussions ü p 02 1 ü mispronounces words ü p 03 a 1 is easily distracted during class activities ü p 03 1 ü seeks guidance from others ü p 04 1 ü needs instructions repeated ü p 04 1 ü waits and observes what others are doing before starting ü p 08 1 ü needs to be reminded about what to do ü p 11 1 ü plays with others at recess and lunch ü p 13 b 1 ü appears withdrawn in class ü p 17 b 1 works well in groups ü p 21 1 ü works well independently ü p 35 1 ü talks loudly in groups ü p 39 1 is disruptive in the class ü p 74 a 1 a Fisher s Exact Test 2 sided b Fisher s Exact Test 1 sided Research Question 3 Is there a relationship between a child s hearing acuity against background noise and their behaviours at home as noticed by their parents Two of the Listening questions approached statistical significance these are referred to in Table 3 4 below Parents reported that they spoke louder Χ 2 2 48 df 1 p 09 and that they speak more slowly Χ 2 2 03 df 1 p 11 to children who had substantial difficulty hearing against background noise Table 3 4 Chi Square results between parent s caregiver s questionnaire and children who have substantial difficulty hearing against background noise Question Χ 2 df significance When talking to your child do you repeat instructions 004 1 p 95 do you speak more slowly 2 03 1 p 11 b do you speak louder than you usually do 2 48 1 p 09 b does your child respond to your voice when he she is watching TV 0 95 1 p 33 Does your child misunderstand you 0 28 1 p 6 Has your child said he she can t hear the teacher very well 2 25 1 p 13 Does your child prefer to play alone or in groups 0 38 1 p 54 b Fisher s Exact Test 1 sided Table 3 5 Descriptive statistics from the Parent s Caregiver s Questionnaire and Chi Square results between parent s caregiver s questionnaire and children who had substantial difficulty hearing against background noise Questions Number of Children Percentage Missing data Χ 2 df signific ance Have had their hearing tested 77 75 0 156 1 69 Have poor hearing test results 8 8 6 Have hearing problems 8 8 6 55 1 46 Have speech language difficulties 18 18 3 4 98 1 03 Have been to a speech pathologist 30 30 0 4 31 1 04 Have Allergies 22 21 2 1 06 1 30 Have had 3 ear infections 31 30 0 Have had a grommit placed in the ear 19 18 0 0 19 1 89 Two of the above items on the parent s caregiver s Questionnaire were found to be statistically significant The children who had substantial difficulty hearing against background noise were reported to have a speech or language difficulty Χ 2 4 98 df 1 p 03 and they were more likely to have been to a speech pathologist Χ 2 4 31 df 1 p 04 Research Question 4 The fourth research question was to determine the levels of background noise Australian school children were exposed to during various classroom activities As can be seen from table 3 6 below the children were exposed to variable noise levels depending on the activity and whether the airconditioning system was operating In all conditions it is evident that the noise levels were high compared to the levels recommended by the American Speech Language Association Table 3 6 Sound level Measurements during various classroom activities WITHOUT AIRCONDITIONING ACTUAL dBA RECOMMENDED Ambient Noise Students and Teacher Quiet 45 to 54 35 Ambient Noise close to adjoining classrooms 53 to 60 35 Signal to Noise ratio Teacher talking only students seated close 10 to 20 15 Teacher talking only students seated far away 3 to 7 15 Background noise with small group activities 75 to 80 Signal to noise ratio small group activities 4 to 4 15 WITH AIR CONDITIONING Ambient Noise students and Teacher Quiet 60 to 64 35 Signal to Noise ratio Teacher talking only 5 to 10 15 Background noise with small group activities 83 Signal to Noise ratio small group activities 4 to 4 15 Incidental results Class Effects It is evident from the data in table 3 7 that some teachers have a far greater number of children with auditory discrimination problems than other teachers Table 3 7 Class analysis of the Percentage of children tested who had substantial difficulty discriminating words against background noise Class Percentage of children tested who had substantial difficulty discriminating words against background noise A 15 B 18 C 27 D 40 E 46 F 58 G 64 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Research Question 1 What percentage of children in an ordinary school population who after at least one or more years of schooling have difficulty hearing against background noise The present study has found that the vast majority 70 of the school children tested have difficulty and 38 of the school children in this study have substantial difficulty discriminating words against background noise Although the present study involved a relatively small sample of 103 children the results could be reflective of the general population as they are similar to those found by other researchers For example these results are similar to the incidence of minimal hearing loss found by the Mainstream Amplification Resource Room Study MARRS This was a three year longitudinal study of students possessing a minimal hearing loss greater than 10 dB hearing level and less than 40 dB hearing level and academic achievement deficits The MARRS study which involved a population of more than 1300 students over three years found that 32 of the students in regular classrooms at the 4 th 5 th and 6 th grades were found to have a minimal hearing loss The MARRS study tested hearing against pure tones in silence to find the incidence of 32 of children with minimal hearing loss whereas the present study was concerned with one of the consequences of minimal hearing loss i e difficulty hearing against background noise Apart from the MARRS project It is difficult to obtain reliable figures on the incidence of hearing loss as many studies have design flaws For example Flexer comments on a study which tested the hearing of 38 000 school children in the US Flexer states Unfortunately Lundeen s data can be misleading because he used the criterion of a pure tone average of greater than 25 dB HL as constituting hearing impairment This criterion is at least 10 dB higher than that known to pose educational and learning problems Lundeen found that only 2 6 of the children from grades 1 to 12 and 5 51 of first graders had pure tone averages greater than 25 dB HL When 15 dB HL is used as the criterion for identifying an educationally significant hearing impairment the incidence increases dramatically For example a study conducted in the Putnam County Ohio school district found that in the primary grades 43 of the students failed a 15 dB HL hearing screening on any given day There has been some Australian research that has found that junior primary children have a high incidence of fluctuating conductive hearing loss with up to 30 on any given day suffering from this condition As the present study was investigating hearing acuity against background noise the results of the quiet subtest was not of primary concern However these results are worthy of comment As can be seen in Table 3 1 and Table 3 2 it is evident that almost the same percentage of children had substantial difficulty on the quiet subtest as well as on the noise subtest This is initially quite surprising as from previous research we would expect more children to have problems discriminating words against background noise rather than in quiet conditions No relationships were found between the children within this quiet group and the teacher behaviour ratings Thus this result required further investigation The reasons this study produced a large number of children with substantial difficulty discriminating words in quiet could be because a the majority of these children only needed to make 3 or 4 errors to be included in this substantial difficulty in quiet group whereas they required between 13 and 14 errors under the noise conditions see Tables 2 2 and 2 3 b the absence of headphones meant that the testing conditions were not ideal for the quiet subtest which may have resulted in somewhat poorer performance on the quiet subtest Goldman et al 1970 p 10 c many of the children could have had a conductive hearing loss on the day as testing was completed during winter and many had colds which could be different to when the normative sample was collected however this information is not available d the G F W normative sample was small and obtained over 30 years ago in the US thus these norms for the quiet subtest could be unsuitable to apply to Australian children The development of Australian norms could eliminate this problem The comment by Rowe and Rowe in their supplement to the Inquiry into the Education of Boys that the teacher effects far outweigh other variables for educational outcomes prompted me to test if there were any differences in the numbers of children who had substantial difficulty hearing against background noise between the seven classes The data in Table 3 7 shows that some teachers had more than 50 58 and 64 of their children who were tested substantially affected whereas other teachers only had 15 and 18 of their tested children substantially affected by background noise Having a large number of children with this difficulty in one class could impose quite difficult teaching conditions especially

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/Hearing%20acuity%20and%20background%20noise,%20and%20ADHD,thesis%20by%20Heather%20McDonald.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • C maps explain sub steps to actions
    helping hard of hearing children Often these kids are missing a lot in language and life because they simply don t hear it I used Inspiration for my own child and wrote this web originally in Inspiration I would like to feature your mapping program for my web asap As a librarian myself who was titillated by the organization of human knowledge I have enjoyed poking around your site what you are doing is a expansion of Cutters work which drove him insane in the last attempt and no one else in the world could take over if Cutter had had your program Dewey woud not have got a job Please let me know if I may use your web in my web Thanks PAM Date Tue 06 Jul 2004 10 23 19 0500 From CmapTools Support cmapsupport ihmc us Subject Re Cmap Website Contact Comment Dear PAM What a great project you have in your hands Of course you can feature our software CmapTools and our website http cmap ihmc us in your website We would like to know the URL where you feature us Please let me know if I can help further Sincerely CmapSupport At the University of Institute for Human and Machine Cognition University of West Florida Part of Developing language actual word Comment 1 phoneme cooga When my kids were 6 months old they were included in the cooga making with an opportunity to stir the mix and later to lick or chew on the mixing spoon Perhaps they experienced making coogas when they heard or said the word or perhaps not Food is a very strong motivation for learning I think eating is stronger than speaking because you can still eat when you can t talk 2 word cookie You ll eat 35 000 cookies in your life according to http www ideafinder com history inventions story047 htm no wonder we teach that word right after mama and dada 3 expanded word chocolate chip cookie 4 verb and object Make chocolate chip cookies 5 proper sentence I want to make Chocolate chip cookies What is involved in that simple sentence If you know how to make cookies by some of this and some of that you will be successful some of the time What if you could not read What if you had no idea where the kitchen stuff is C Mapping the Making of Cookies I have had fun examining the concept of making cookies using a c map process I have only allowed my divergent brain to play humorously with the Alternatives and thought about the humour which the hard of hearing child misses out on because they are not aware of the alternative meanings to the same word and they are already running fast and getting tired dealing with the first meaning It has taken research to establish every tool needed or every ingredient I am learning to use this program so I did not get too fancy with html clicks

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/C%20maps%20explain%20sub%20stepping.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IEP Pot Pouri
    there are many people in the world who do not see the importance of education in the first place and education for special needs kids in the second Grass roots Class In a grass roots classroom if nothing else sitting where the teacher can be speechread and the use of a overhead if possible and special notes for the hard of hearing child who usually has difficulty listening and writing Using the child s name first establishing eye contact and then asking a question If the child is not hearing well then the teacher should walk closer to the hard of hearing child There are lots of impressive collections of information about the IEP on the internet From the US government http www ed gov parents needs speced iepguide index html Links to the Ontario IEP information http www edu gov on ca eng general elemsec speced individu html An IEP for the UK http www teachernet gov uk management atoz i individualeducationplan For UK Teachers to learn how to write an IEP http www learnhowpublications co uk Should kids go to the IEP YES yes At the begining the child won t contribute much but unless self advocacy is not practised and expected from the child the older child or young adult will never find a point to start http www ldonline org ld indepth iep iep kids html LD On Line has many articles specific to learning disabilities and the IEP http www ldonline org ld indepth iep iep html Making sure the IEP is Legal http www ldonline org ld indepth iep legally correct ieps html By the Wright s parents document http www ldonline org ld indepth iep iep guidance html What to say Pop up Guide http www nclid unco edu Hvoriginals Advocacy Popup popup

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/IEP%20Pot%20Pouri%20%20April%202005.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IEP,IPRC,ISA
    children who are accomplishing as opposed to children who are not accomplishing Sending a hard of hearing child into the school system is like throwing chocolate cheese cake at pigs They know enough to eat it but perhaps not savour the taste The mainstream teachers and school system expect a hard of hearing child to hear all day long When you point out that the child gets tired or might behave badly for one reason or another you get labeled as a difficult parent The school system does not expect to do much for any child Their level of support is defined by as little individual support as possible because it is the cheapest way Our choices for Reid at the IPRC before kindergarten included mainstream placement in the local school mainstream placement in the local school with resource withdrawal or placement in another school board s oral program for deaf and hard of hearing children We choose mainstream placement with resource withdrawal This has been so unsuccessful for us that we suggested that a neighbour send their hard of hearing child to the oral school in another school board PARENT DOCUMENTATION AT IPRC is a new privilege use it I am quite sure that our school board records our meetings as positive in outcome They take three years to respond to a letter and when I point out that the basics of the letter are wrong they do not respond Our school board is knowlegeable about equipment for hard of hearing children The Audiologist can help with a strong letter Your child s audiologist must write a forceful letter stating the child s placement and all needed equipment Our audiologists have tended to not express the needs to the school which the school interprets readily as does not have special needs Several years ago we had a terrific audiologist who wrote very good letters of support and the school did what was ordered Most of the audiologists I know do not think of themselves as educational advocates For example an overhead projector to replace a blackboard in all the child s classrooms means the teacher does hot have his or her back to the child while writing on the blackboard Of course there must be a demand for a FM and head mounted mike Our school board has bought individual mikes for each teacher and Reid carries the little blue FM box from class to class This reduces teacher anxiety about bugs on the mike from someone else The little box is the expensive part Once you have determined the educational placement of the child and you sign the papers the IPRC meeting is over If you are not happy with the outcome of the IPRC meeting do not sign the papers Hire your Own Consultant This year we have hired an educational consultant to negotiate and write Reid s IEP with the school board Reid has not had a signed IEP for over a year If you would

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/iep_stresses.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Reid's IEP
    an individualized Math program assistance with attention to task organization sequencing following directions problem solving strategies and initiating and completing assignments specialized equipment to support oral communication Reid Candllish Page 2 Special Educational Services Personalized Equipment Itinerant Resource Teacher Deaf Resource Teacher monitoring we need to add here the initiation date planned frequency or intensity and location for each of the above adaptive computer hardware software aids FM system for use in the classroom Voice activated tape recorder overhead projector in every classroom for notes and for photocopying overhead notes General Accommodations for all courses use of FM system eye contact when speaking to Reid face Reid while talking directly to him preferential seating minimize distractions provide opportunities for Reid to orally rehearse instructions review of new vocabulary in advance dictionary thesaurus and word lists assign one task at a time highlight chunk material reduce new skills to smaller steps assignments sheets communication books homework log daily agenda prioritize tasks for completion provide self checking methods increased task completion time scribe peer tutor photocopy notes computer with voice recognition technology accommodations to testing formats note open book tests verbal responses etc Provincial Assessment Accommodations Grade 10 Literacy scribe individual setting extra time Program Area Computer technology and voice recognition software Annual Goal To learn and use computer technology such as voice recognition software for assignments and tests in order to become more independent Current Level of Achievement Method of Evaluation and Reporting Evaluate use during daily assignments and tests Results will be communicated in writing on the Mid semester and Final report cards Learning Expectations Strategies and Accommodations Resources and Equipment Assessment Methods Alternative Expectations develop personal voice file email assignments to teachers use a tape recorder to tape class lessons use IBM Via Voice Advanced WordPerfect and Word develop at home on computer working at 90 accuracy successfully completed and e mailed English assignments TRANSITION PLAN NAME Reid Candlish LONG TERM GOAL To attend a post secondary community college or university ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY DATE STEPS 1 Select target colleges universities programs 2 Complete prerequisite SS credits 3 Prepare for admission screening process 4 Acquire needed study skills 5 Preparation for needed post secondary accommodations Reid parents guidance principal Reid Reid parents guidance principal Reid with support from guidance Reid parents guidance principal March 6 2001 ACTIONS TO DATE option sheet completed for 2001 02 Reid has set goals in Annual Education Plan Reid Special Education Resource Teacher TAP March 6 2001 ACTIONS CURRENT acquire needed study skills Reid has set goals in AEP current assessments indicate adaptive technologies review timetable to ensure that Reid is enrolled in Career Studies Reid with support from Peer Tutor and TAP Advisor Reid TAP Advisor guidance TAP Advisor Principal Ongoing End of May ACTIONS NEXT YEAR enrolled and active participant in Career Studies Reid had set goals in AEP start a portfolio and update at regularly review appropriate courses at post secondary level appropriate courses are selected on option sheet technology training remains

    Original URL path: http://www.hardofhearingchildren.com/Great%20Information/reid%27s%20iep.htm (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive