Abstract
This meta-analysis study aims to quantify the group differences in reading skills between children with cochlear implants and their hearing peers and between children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids. Of the 5,642 articles screened, 47 articles met predetermined inclusion criteria. The robust variance estimation based meta-analysis models were used to synthesize all the effect sizes. Children with cochlear implants performed significantly worse than their hearing peers for phonological awareness (g = -1.62, p < .001), vocabulary (g = -1.50, p < .001), decoding (g = -1.24, p < .001), and reading comprehension (g = -1.39, p < .001), but not for fluency (g = -.67, p = .054). Children with cochlear implants only scored significantly lower in phonological awareness (g = -.30, p = .028) than children with hearing aids. The only significant moderator was the percentage of unilateral cochlear implant that negatively impact the group difference between children with cochlear implants and their hearing peers. Findings from this study confirm a positive shift in reading outcomes for profoundly deaf children as a consequence of cochlear implantation despite the poor scores in all constructs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [5R21DC018110, 2019]; the Barkley Trust, Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Biomedical Research Development, College of Education and Human Sciences, and the Office of Research and Economic Development at University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is meta-analysis study with an exemption for IRB.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: There are no relevant conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
Data and codes are available by request.
