Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if traditional audiologic measures (e.g., pure-tone average, speech recognition) and audibility-based measures predict risk for spoken language delay in children who are hard of hearing (CHH) who use hearing aids (HAs). Audibility-based measures included the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), HA use, and auditory dosage, a measure of auditory access that weighs each child's unaided and aided audibility by the average hours of HA use per day. The authors also sought to estimate values of these measures at which CHH would be at greater risk for delayed outcomes compared with a group of children with typical hearing (CTH) matched for age and socioeconomic status, potentially signaling a need to make changes to a child's hearing technology or intervention plan. DESIGN: The authors compared spoken language outcomes of 182 CHH and 78 CTH and evaluated relationships between language and audiologic measures (e.g., aided SII) in CHH using generalized additive models. They used these models to identify values associated with falling below CTH (by > 1.5 SDs from the mean) on language assessments, putting CHH at risk for language delay. RESULTS: Risk for language delay was associated with aided speech recognition in noise performance (<59% phonemes correct, 95% confidence interval [55%, 62%]), aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII < 0.61, 95% confidence internal [.53,.68]), and auditory dosage (dosage < 6.0, 95% confidence internal [5.3, 6.7]) in CHH. The level of speech recognition in quiet, unaided pure-tone average, and unaided SII that placed children at risk for language delay could not be determined due to imprecise estimates with broad confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Results support using aided SII, aided speech recognition in noise measures, and auditory dosage as tools to facilitate clinical decision-making, such as deciding whether changes to a child's hearing technology are warranted. Values identified in this article can complement other metrics (e.g., unaided hearing thresholds, aided speech recognition testing, language assessment) when considering changes to intervention, such as adding language supports, making HA adjustments, or referring for cochlear implant candidacy evaluation.