988368
سه شنبه 27 مرداد 1405
دوره 24، شماره 3 - ( 6-1405 )
جلد 24 شماره 3 صفحات 0-0 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Ethics code: IR.USWR.REC1403.119
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kazemi T, Darouie A, Zarifian T, Vahedi M, Ahadi M. Task-Specific Phonological Processing Deficits in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Nonword-Based Assessment in Quiet and Noisy Conditions. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2026; 24 (3)
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2741-fa.html
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2741-fa.html
Task-Specific Phonological Processing Deficits in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Nonword-Based Assessment in Quiet and Noisy Conditions. مجله انگلیسی زبان توانبخشی. 1405; 24 (3)
چکیده: (334 مشاهده)
Objectives: Unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children may affect phonological awareness, but it remains unclear whether different phonological subskills are affected similarly. This study compared nonword-based phonological manipulation skills in children with UHL and normal-hearing peers across quiet and noise conditions.
Methods: Twenty-six Persian-speaking first- and second-grade children participated, including 13 children with UHL and 13 children with normal hearing. Phonological awareness was assessed using five nonword-based subtests: blending, segmentation, and initial-, medial-, and final-phoneme deletion. Each subtest was administered under quiet and noise conditions at a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Backward Digit Span was assessed as a working-memory and eligibility measure. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Holm procedure.
Results: In first-grade children, the normal-hearing group obtained higher mean scores across all subtests, but no subtest-level between-group difference remained statistically significant after Holm correction. In second-grade children, the normal-hearing group performed significantly better in blending in noise, segmentation in both quiet and noise, and initial- and medial-phoneme deletion in noise. Significant quiet–noise differences remained for three subtests in first-grade children with UHL and four subtests in second-grade children with UHL, compared with one subtest in first-grade children with normal hearing and none in second-grade children with normal hearing. No subtest-level grade differences remained significant after correction; however, total nonword scores were higher in second-grade children with normal hearing under both listening conditions. Backward Digit Span scores did not differ significantly between the groups.
Discussion: Phonological-awareness performance was task- and grade-specific rather than uniformly impaired in children with UHL. Subtest-level between-group differences were most evident among second-grade children, particularly for tasks presented in noise. Although quiet–noise differences occurred across more subtests within the UHL groups, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the listening-condition order was fixed and a direct group-by-condition interaction was not tested. Assessment should include multiple phonological tasks under both quiet and noise conditions.
Methods: Twenty-six Persian-speaking first- and second-grade children participated, including 13 children with UHL and 13 children with normal hearing. Phonological awareness was assessed using five nonword-based subtests: blending, segmentation, and initial-, medial-, and final-phoneme deletion. Each subtest was administered under quiet and noise conditions at a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Backward Digit Span was assessed as a working-memory and eligibility measure. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Holm procedure.
Results: In first-grade children, the normal-hearing group obtained higher mean scores across all subtests, but no subtest-level between-group difference remained statistically significant after Holm correction. In second-grade children, the normal-hearing group performed significantly better in blending in noise, segmentation in both quiet and noise, and initial- and medial-phoneme deletion in noise. Significant quiet–noise differences remained for three subtests in first-grade children with UHL and four subtests in second-grade children with UHL, compared with one subtest in first-grade children with normal hearing and none in second-grade children with normal hearing. No subtest-level grade differences remained significant after correction; however, total nonword scores were higher in second-grade children with normal hearing under both listening conditions. Backward Digit Span scores did not differ significantly between the groups.
Discussion: Phonological-awareness performance was task- and grade-specific rather than uniformly impaired in children with UHL. Subtest-level between-group differences were most evident among second-grade children, particularly for tasks presented in noise. Although quiet–noise differences occurred across more subtests within the UHL groups, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the listening-condition order was fixed and a direct group-by-condition interaction was not tested. Assessment should include multiple phonological tasks under both quiet and noise conditions.
