Home language environment in relation to language outcome in Brazilian toddlers who are hard of hearing and controls with typical hearing – a pilot study including reliability analyses of the LENA recording system
Ambiente doméstico de linguagem em relação ao resultado de linguagem em crianças brasileiras com deficiência auditiva e controles com crianças com audição típica – um estudo piloto incluindo análises de confiabilidade do sistema de gravação LENA
Miriam da Silva Ferreira; Cilmara Cristina Alves da Costa Levy; Ulrika Löfkvist
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the home language environment and language outcome of Brazilian toddlers who were hard of hearing, (HH) and controls with typical hearing (TH), and investigate the reliability of using the LENA recording system within a Brazilian Portuguese context. Methods: Fourteen families participated in the study (seven children who were HH and seven controls with TH. Each family contributed with one all-day recording. A smaller portion of the recordings of the typically hearing toddlers were manually transcribed by two transcribers. An interrater agreement was conducted, and then the human transcript results were compared against the LENA-generated data for three measures: Adult Words (AW), Child Vocalizations (CV) and Conversational Turns (CT). Results: Data analyses revealed a moderate to strong interrater agreement for CV and AW. Weak to moderate agreement was found between the LENA estimates and the means of the human counts for CV and AW. Seemingly, LENA overestimated human counts for AW and underestimated numbers of CV. Comparative analysis suggested similarities in the language and listening environment of the two groups (TH vs. HoH). Children’s language development was supported by higher numbers of parent-child interactions (CT). Conclusion: The findings imply that LENA may contribute as an ecologically valid tool in preventive family-centered intervention programs for Brazilian toddlers who are hard of hearing and their families, although further validation studies are needed.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo piloto foi explorar o ambiente da língua doméstica e os resultados linguísticos de crianças brasileiras com deficiência auditiva comparando com crianças ouvintes e investigar a confiabilidade do uso do sistema de registro LENA no contexto do português brasileiro. Método: Quatorze famílias participaram do estudo (sete com deficiência auditiva e sete controles com audição típica). Cada família contribuiu com uma gravação durante o tempo de vigilia. Uma parte menor das gravações das crianças com audição normal foi transcrita manualmente por dois transcritores. Um acordo entre avaliadores foi realizado e, em seguida, os resultados da transcrição humana foram comparados com os dados gerados pelo LENA para três medidas: Palavras de Adultos (PA), Vocalizações Infantis (VI) e Turnos de Conversação (TC). Resultados: As análises de dados revelaram uma concordância entre avaliadores moderada a forte para VI e PA. Foi encontrada concordância de fraca a moderada entre as estimativas de LENA e as médias das contagens humanas para VI e AW. Aparentemente LENA superestimou contagens humanas para PA e subestimou números de VI. A análise comparativa sugeriu semelhanças na linguagem e no ambiente auditivo dos dois grupos. O desenvolvimento da linguagem das crianças foi apoiado por um maior número de interações pais-filhos (TC). Conclusão: Os achados sugerem que o LENA pode contribuir como uma ferramenta ecologicamente válida em programas de intervenção preventiva centrada na família para crianças brasileiras com deficiência auditiva e suas famílias, embora mais estudos de validação sejam necessários.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Gilkerson J, Coulter KK, Richards JA. Transcriptional analyses of the LENA natural language corpus. Boulder: LENA Foundation; 2009. p. 1-11.
2. Canault M, Le Normand MT, Foudil S, Loundon N, Thai-Van H. Reliability of the Language Environment Analysis system (LENA™) in European French. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48(3):1109-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-015-0634-8. PMid:26174716.
3. Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S. Reliability of the LENA Language Environment Analysis System in young children’s natural home environment. Boulder: LENA Foundation; 2009.
4. Aragon M, Yoshinaga-Itano C. Using Language Environment Analysis to improve outcomes for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Semin Speech Lang. 2012;33(4):340-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1326918. PMid:23081793.
5. Da Prato I. The application of LENA method to a sample group of Italian children [thesis]. Pisa: University of Pisa; 2016.
6. Ganek HV, Eriks-Brophy A. A concise protocol for the validation of Language Environment Analysis (LENA) conversational turn counts in Vietnamese. Comm Disord Q. 2018;39(2):371-80. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1525740117705094.
7. Gilkerson J, Zhang Y, Xu D, Richards JA, Xu X, Jiang F, et al. Evaluating Language Environment Analysis system performance for Chinese: a pilot study in Shanghai. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(2):445-52. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0014. PMid:25614978.
8. Nilsson C, Olsson L. LENA-En stegmätare för ord: lyssnings-och talspråksmiljö hos en grupp svenska barn vid 18-24 månaders ålder mätt med Language Environment Analysis. Uppsala: Uppsala University; 2015.
9. Pae S, Yoon H, Seol A, Gilkerson J, Richards JA, Ma L, et al. Effects of feedback on parent–child language with infants and toddlers in Korea. First Lang. 2016;36(6):549-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142723716649273.
10. Schwarz IC, Botros N, Lord A, Marcusson A, Tidelius H, Marklund E. The LENATM system applied to Swedish: reliability of the adult word count estimate. In: 18th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2017); 2017; Stockholm. Proceedings. Stockholm: The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA); 2017. p. 2088-92.
11. Ambrose SE, Walker EA, Unflat-Berry LM, Oleson JJ, Moeller MP. Quantity and quality of caregivers’ linguistic input to 18-month and 3-year-old children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear. 2015;36(1, Suppl. 1):48S-59S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000209. PMid:26731158.
12. Suskind DL, Leffel KR, Graf E, Hernandez MW, Gunderson EA, Sapolich SG, et al. A parent-directed language intervention for children of low socioeconomic status: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Child Lang. 2016;43(2):366-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000033. PMid:26041013.
13. Fulcher A, Purcell AA, Baker E, Munro N. Listen up: children with early identified hearing loss achieve age-appropriate speech/language outcomes by 3 years-of-age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(12):1785-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.09.001. PMid:23084781.
14. LENA Research Foundation. User guide LENA Pro [Brochure]. Louisville; 2015. 15. Padovani CM, Teixeira ER. Using the Macarthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI’S) to assess the lexical development of cochlear implanted children. Pro Fono. 2004;16(2):217-24. PMid:15311747.
16. Wood C, Diehm EA, Callender MF. An investigation of language environment analysis measures for Spanish-English bilingual preschoolers from migrant low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2016;47(2):123-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0115. PMid:27019230.
17. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Wiggin M, Chung W. Early hearing detection and vocabulary of children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 2017;140(2):e20162964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2964. PMid:28689189.
18. Wake M, Ching TY, Wirth K, Poulakis Z, Mensah FK, Gold L, et al. Population outcomes of three approaches to detection of congenital hearing loss. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20151722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2015-1722. PMid:26704085.
19. Weisleder A, Fernald A. Talking to children matters: early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(11):2143-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613488145. PMid:24022649.
20. IBGE: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo demográfico 2010 [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2010 [cited 2021 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/apps/mapa/
21. IBGE: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento. Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde: 2013: ciclos de vida: Brasil e grandes regiões. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2015.
22. Hart B, Risley TR. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing; 1995.
23. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):898-921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007- 2333. PMid:17908777.
24. Muse C, Harrison J, Yoshinaga-Itano C, Grimes A, Brookhouser PE, Epstein S, et al. Supplement to the JCIH 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early intervention after confirmation that a child is deaf or hard of hearing. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1324-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2013-0008. PMid:23530178.
25. Oetting JB, Hartfield LR, Pruitt SL. Exploring LENA as a tool for researchers and clinicians. ASHA Lead. 2009;14(6):20-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/ leader.FTR3.14062009.20.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email