Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, okul öncesi normal işiten ve işitme engelli çocuğa sahip ebeveynlerin çocukları ile kurdukları iletişim becerileri düzeyini karşılaştırmak ve anne-baba-çocuk arasında görülen iletişimsel sorunların nedenlerini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya çocuğu işitme cihazı kullanıcısı olan 21, koklear implant kullanıcısı çocuğu olan 23 ve normal işiten çocuğu olan 23 ebeveyn katılmıştır. Kahraman (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Ebeveynin Çocuğuyla İletişimi Ölçeği dâhil edilen katılımcılara uygulanmıştır. Veriler Google Forms aracılığı ile toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin alt başlıkları olan problem çözme, paylaşıma açık olma, saygı-kabul, duyarlılık, engelsiz dinleme ile toplam skor bakımından sonuçlar incelenmiştir. İstatistiksel olarak anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Koklear implant kullanan çocuğa sahip ebeveynlerin çocuklarıyla iletişiminin saygı-kabul ve duyarlılık alt faktörlerinde normal işiten ve işitme cihazlı çocuğa sahip ebeveynlere göre daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmiştir (p<0,05). Anketin problem çözme, paylaşıma açık olma ve engelsiz dinleme alt faktörleri ile toplam skoru gruplar arasında farklılık göstermemiştir (p>0,05). Sonuç: Koklear implant kullanıcıları; cerrahi operasyon öncesinde genel gelişim durumu, dil yaşı, psikososyal hâl; implantasyon sonrasında gerekli desteği sağlayacak ve rehabilitasyon sürecinin merkezinde yer alacak ebeveyn desteğine sahip olmaları gibi birçok faktörün uygunluğunun değerlendirildiği bir süreçten geçmektedirler. Bu süreçten geçen ebeveynlerin operasyon sonrası dönemde de odyologlar başta olmak üzere tıbbi ve eğitim profesyonelleri ile sıkı iş birliği içinde olmalarının, iletişim performansı bakımından koklear implantlı çocukların saygı-kabul ve duyarlılık başlıklarındaki skorlarının işitme cihazlı ve normal işiten gruplardan daha yüksek çıkmasını sağlamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Koklear implant; iletişim; işitme cihazları; ebeveyn çocuk iletişimi
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the level of communication skills of parents with hearing impaired and normal hearing preschool children with their children and to investigate the causes of communicative problems between parents and children. Material and Methods: Twenty-one parents with hearing aid users, 23 parents with cochlear implant users and 23 parents with normal hearing children participated in the study. Parent-Child Communication Scale developed by Kahraman (2016) was applied to the included participants. Data were collected through Google Forms. The results were analyzed in terms of problem solving, openness to sharing, respect-acceptance, sensitivity, unobstructed listening and total score. Statistical significance level was determined as p<0.05. Results: It was observed that parents with cochlear implant users had higher levels of respect-acceptance and sensitivity sub-factors of communication with their children than parents with normal hearing children (p<0.05). The problem solving, openness to sharing and unobstructed listening sub-factors of the questionnaire and the total score did not differ between the groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Cochlear implant users go through a process in which the appropriateness of many factors such as general developmental status, language age, psychosocial status before the surgical operation and having parental support that will provide the necessary support after implantation and be at the center of the rehabilitation process are evaluated. The fact that the parents who went through this process were in close cooperation with medical and educational professionals, especially audiologists in the postoperative period, led to higher scores of children with cochlear implants in respect-acceptance and sensitivity in terms of communication performance.
Keywords: Cochlear implant; communication; hearing aids; parent-child communication
- Adler A. The Education of Children. 1st ed. England, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. [Crossref]
- Kostelnik MJ, Soderman AK, Whiren AP. Developmentally Appropriate, Curriculum : Best Practices in Early Childhood Education. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River; 2007.
- Zaidman-Zait A, Most T. Pragmatics and peer relationships among deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing adolescents. Pediatrics. 2020;146(Suppl 3):S298-S303. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yavuz, H, Baran G, Yızdız Bıçakçı M. İşitme engelli ve işitme engeli olmayan 9-17 yaş grubundaki çocukların sosyal uyumlarının karşılaştırılması [Comparison of social adaptation of hearing impaired and non-hearing impaired children in the 9-17 age group]. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet. 2010;21(1):7-23 [Link]
- Jedrzejczak WW, Pilka E, Skarzynski PH, Skarzynski H. Contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in pre-school children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;132:109915. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Shehabi AM, Prendergast G, Guest H, Plack CJ. Binaural temporal coding and the middle ear muscle reflex in audiometrically normal young adults. Hear Res. 2023;427:108663. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gündüz B, Yildirim N, Güven SC, Orhan E, Karamert R, Günendi Z. Evaluation of medial olivocochlear efferent system and hearing loss in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. Turk J Med Sci. 2019;49(6):1647-54. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Turay CB, Ozer F, Yildirim T, Erbek S. Evaluation of the possible effect of magnetic resonance imaging noise on peripheral hearing organ with the otoacoustic emission. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102586. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beck RM, Ramos BF, Grasel SS, Ramos HF, Moraes MF, Almeida ER, et al. Comparative study between pure tone audiometry and auditory steady-state responses in normal hearing subjects. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;80(1):35-40. English, Portuguese. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Davidson LS, Skinner MW. Audibility and speech perception of children using wide dynamic range compression hearing AIDS. Am J Audiol. 2006;15(2):141-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dolan-Ash S, Hodges AV, Butts SL, Balkany TJ. Borderline pediatric cochlear implant candidates: preoperative and postoperative results. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 2000;109(12_suppl):36-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kahraman S. Ebeveynin üstün yetenekli çocuğuyla iletişimini geliştirmeye yönelik psikoeğitim programının etkisinin incelenmesi [Doktora tezi]. İstanbul: Fatih Üniversitesi; 2016. [Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2023]. [Link]
- George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step. 16th ed. New York: Routledge; 2019. [Crossref]
- Most T. The effects of degree and type of hearing loss on children's performance in class. Deafness and Education International. 2004;6(3):154-66. [Crossref]
- Mitchell RE, Karchmer MA. Chasing the mythical ten percent: parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies. 2004;4(2):138-63. [Crossref]
- Zaidman-Zait A. Everyday problems and stress faced by parents of children with cochlear implants. Rehabil Psychol. 2008;53(2):139-52. [Crossref]
- Harris A, Goodall J. Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research. 2008;50(3):277-89. [Crossref]
- Jackson CW, Wegner JR, Turnbull AP. Family quality of life following early identification of deafness. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2010;41(2):194-205. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Stinson MS, Lang HG. Full inclusion: a path for integration or isolation? Am Ann Deaf. 1994;139(2):156-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- McAnally PL, Rose S, Quigley SP. Language Learning Practices with Deaf Children. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1988.
- Smith LB, Quittner AL, Osberger MJ, Miyamoto R. Audition and visual attention: the developmental trajectory in deaf and hearing populations. Dev Psychol. 1998;34(5):840-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Quittner AL, Leibach P, Marciel K. The impact of cochlear implants on young deaf children: new methods to assess cognitive and behavioral development. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):547-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Monshizadeh L, Vameghi R, Sajedi F, Yadegari F, Rahimi M, Hashemi SB. The development of an interventional package on "receptive vocabulary" for cochlear implanted children. Iran J Child Neurol. 2019;13(2):113-23. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Akilbayeva GI, Zhunsbek ZH. [Socialization of schoolchildren with hearing impairment by the development of their communications]. Bulletin of KazNPU Named After Abai Series 'Special Pedagogy.' 2022:18-23. [Crossref]
- Topol D, Girard N, St Pierre L, Tucker R, Vohr B. The effects of maternal stress and child language ability on behavioral outcomes of children with congenital hearing loss at 18-24 months. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87(12):807-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fitzpatrick EM, Jiawen W, Janet O, JoAnne W, Flora N, Isabelle G, et al. Parent-reported stress and child behavior for 4-year-old children with unilateral or mild bilateral hearing loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2022;27(2):137-50. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Ashori M. Impact of auditory-verbal therapy on executive functions in children with cochlear implants. J Otol. 2022;17(3):130-5. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Curtin M, Morgan G, Cruice M, Herman R. Assessing parent interaction with deaf infants: a quantitative survey of UK professional practice. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2023;58(4):1148-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Meadow-Orlans KP, Spencer PE. Maternal sensitivity and the visual attentiveness of children who are deaf. Infant Child Dev. 1996;5(4):213-23. [Crossref]
- Pressman L, Pipp-Siegel S, Yoshinaga-Itano C, Deas A. Maternal sensitivity predicts language gain in preschool children who are deaf and hard of hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 1999;4(4):294-304. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Quittner AL, Cruz I, Barker DH, Tobey E, Eisenberg LS, Niparko JK; Childhood Development after Cochlear Implantation Investigative Team. Effects of maternal sensitivity and cognitive and linguistic stimulation on cochlear implant users' language development over four years. J Pediatr. 2013;162(2):343-8.e3. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Dirks E, Rieffe C. Are you there for me? Joint engagement and emotional availability in parent-child interactions for toddlers with moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2019;40(1):18-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nittrouer S, Lowenstein JH, Antonelli J. Parental language input to children with hearing loss: does it matter in the end? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;63(1):234-58. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Demir İ. Ergenlik döneminde bağlanma. Solmuş T, editör. Bağlanma, Evlilik ve Aile Psikolojisi. 1. Baskı. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık; 2011. p.259-71.
- Intxausti N, Etxeberria F, Joaristi L. Involvement of immigrant parents in their children's schooling in a bilingual educational context: the Basque case (Spain). International Journal of Educational Research. 2013;59(2):35-48. [Crossref]
- Mautone JA, Marcelle E, Tresco KE, Power TJ. Assessing the quality of parent-teacher relationships for students with ADHD. Psychol Sch. 2015;52(2):196-207. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
.: Process List