STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross sectional observational study.
METHODS: Two sets of questionnaires were given to 126 parents or primary caregivers of the implantees. The first set of questionnaire contained questions to assess the children's usage of CI, their types of education placement, and their modes of communication. The second set of questionnaire was the Parent's Evaluation Of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) to evaluate the children's auditory functionality.
RESULTS: Our study showed that among the implantees, 97.6% are still using their CI, 69.8% communicating orally, and 58.5% attending mainstream education. For implantees that use oral communication and attend mainstream education, their mean age of implantation is 38 months. This is significantly lower compared to the mean age of implantation of implantees that use non-oral communication and attend non-mainstream education. Simple logistic regression analysis shows age of implantation reliably predicts implantees (N = 126) would communicate using oral communication with odds ratio of 0.974, and also predict mainstream education (N = 118) with odds ratio of 0.967. The median score of PEACH rating scale is 87.5% in quiet, and this significantly correlates with an earlier age of implantation (r = -0.235 p = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: UKM Cochlear Implant Program has achieved reasonable success among the pediatric implantees, with better outcomes seen in those implanted at the age of less than 4 years old.
METHODS: A total of 11 parents and 8 teachers of the 6-year old CI children participated and rated the children using the School Readiness Scale to Year One. Data from 207 6-year old NH children from five states in Malaysia were also collected using the same scale which has nine domains. Results from the NH children were categorized into the 25th and 75th percentile scores to be the reference cut-offs for below average (below the 25th percentile), average (25th to 75th percentile) and above average (above 75th percentile).
RESULTS: The school readiness skills of the CI children were lower than the NH group as rated by teachers especially in the civic and language and communication domains. Comparisons between parents' and teachers' ratings for 8 CI children indicated that teachers tended to rate the CI children's school readiness poorer than that of parents especially in the academic domain. Intra-class correlation analysis revealed poor inter-rater agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that our CI children, generally, need an intervention 'bridging' program to improve their school readiness skills. Parents and teachers had different views on the readiness of the CI children at school entry level.