| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
TATSUKAWA Takaharu Hiroshima Univ., Faculty of Medicine, Research Associate, 医学部・附属病院, 助手 (70304441)
MASUDA Shin Hiroshima Univ., Faculty of Medicine, Research Associate, 医学部, 助手 (50263695)
|
|---|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,900,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 2000: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 1999: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 1998: ¥1,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,700,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In order to inductively and quantitatively evaluate the communicative ability of children with cochlear implants, we made a checklist in a trial to evaluate the linguistic ability of children with cochlear implants. In this list, there were 3 items evaluating the hearing ability, 3 items evaluating expressive ability, 2 items evaluating understanding ability, 4 items evaluating emotional psychology, and one final item for evaluating communicative ability. The evaluation procedure was performed in accordance with Visual Analog Scaling (VAS).
Children with cochlear implants and their mothers played at keeping-house and were recorded on VTR in order to confirm the validity of the items in the checklist and the methods of evaluation from our list. Consequently, this VTR was shown to 6 nursery teachers, 5 speech therapists and 5 medical doctors so that evaluations could be made using those items on the checklist. When objective data was extracted from the VTR and evaluation scores obtained from the checklist were compared, the suitability of those evaluation items concerned with the sense of hearing ability, expressive ability, understanding ability, and communicative ability was confirmed. When the evaluation scores on communicative ability and the other items of evaluation were compared, a relationship was observed in all but 3 of the 9 items.
The expression "communicative ability has improved" is frequently used when monitoring the language development of children with cochlear implants. However, because the images inspired with the words "communicative ability" vary from profession to profession, confusion often arises when such professions collaborate in a team approach to habilitation. Using the above-mentioned evaluation scores, we examined the difference between professions when evaluating communicative ability. As a result, when communicative ability was evaluated, the focal point of evaluation differed according to profession.
|
