Practitioners' perspectives on the functioning of school-age children with cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The availability of cochlear implants has increased the number of children with profound deafness educated in classrooms alongside peers with normal hearing. The purpose of this research was to better understand the functioning of these children from the perspective of their service providers. METHODS: Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 28 practitioners to elicit their perceptions of children's abilities in oral communication, academic, and social functioning. Data were coded inductively and examined through content analysis. RESULTS: The central theme was that cochlear implantation has improved school functioning for children both in hearing and related spoken language abilities and beyond hearing in academic and social development. While these benefits were a consistent theme, a wide range of performance was identified across all areas of functioning. In particular, areas of concern included full participation in classroom activities and social interaction with peers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide insights into functioning for children with cochlear implants from the perspective of those who interact with them in everyday settings. These findings underscore the challenges for children in achieving full participation despite improvements in communication skills. Practitioners identified areas where intervention is required to facilitate the inclusion of children in school programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".