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 (aged between 3 to 18 years old). Of the 5,642 articles screened, 47 articles met predetermined inclusion criteria (published between 2002 and 2019). The robust variance estimation based meta-analysis models were used to synthesize all the effect sizes. Children with cochlear implants scored significantly lower than their hearing peers in 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). Compared to children with hearing aids, children with cochlear implants scored significantly lower in phonological awareness (g = -.30, p = .028). The percentage of unilateral cochlear implant negatively impacts 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 due to cochlear implantation. Some children with cochlear implants may need additional supports in educational settings.
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. The undergraduate research assistant (Makayla J. Gill) was supported by the UNL Undergraduate Creative Activities and Research Experience (UCARE) program funded in part by gifts from the Pepsi Quasi Endowment and Union Bank & Trust. Many thanks to Dr. Michelle L. Hughes for providing her constructive comments. Y.W. conceptualized research ideas, performed meta-analyses, and wrote the main paper. F.S. coded all the articles, performed initial analysis, and drafted part of the paper. K.L. provided statistical analysis, wrote R codes to analyze and valid results, and edited the statistical methodology part in the paper. M.J.G coded 80% of the studies and edited the paper. J.H. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors commented on the manuscripts before the submission. All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. The data that support the findings of this study are available by request to the corresponding author.
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
The title is revised and more details of the study selection are added.
Data Availability
Data and codes are available by request.
