MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996118798 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enz041

Auditory, Social, and Behavioral Skills of Children With Unilateral/Mild Hearing Loss

2019· review· en· W2996118798 on OpenAlexafffund
Flora Nassrallah, Ken Tang, JoAnne Whittingham, Huidan Sun, Elizabeth M. Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsPsychologyIntraclass correlationAudiologyHearing lossNormativeDevelopmental psychologyUnilateral hearing lossPopulationLateralityClinical psychologyPsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the impact of mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss on auditory, social, and behavior skills in early school-aged children. Thirty-two children (aged 5-9 years) were evaluated with parent and teacher questionnaires. Most outcomes were within the range of expected scores. However, functional auditory skills were below published results for children with typical hearing. On the social skills scale, about 21.4% (parent-reported) and 20.0% (teacher-reported) of children were below one standard deviation (SD) of the normative mean (i.e., a standard score below 85). On the parent-reported behavior test, over a quarter of children scored beyond 1 SD on some subscales. Laterality of hearing loss had no effect on outcomes (p > .05). Agreement between parents and teachers varied from poor (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: .162) to moderate (ICC: .448). Results indicate that these children are functioning in most areas like their peers with typical hearing. Additional research on this population of children who may benefit from early identification and amplification is warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207