Investigation of Parental Expectations about Cochlear Implantation

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 54 - 73, 14.04.2015

Nurdan Cankuvvet , Murat Doğan , Hasan Gürgür

https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c1s3m

Öz

Cochlear implant is to be considered the best response to severe and profound hearing loss in children. Parental expectations of CI are now scope of research. It is important to have understanding of parents’ expectations of outcomes. In this scope, the purpose of study is to investigate parental expectation about CI. Qualitative descriptive design was used to conduct the research with 17 participants. Focus group interview was performed with CI team members (n = 6) and parents whose children are CI users (n = 7), while semi-structured interviews were conducted with various CI company representatives (n = 4). The data were subjected to descriptive analysis. Two main themes have emerged in regard of parental expectation: (1) Expectation before CI and (2) Expectation after CI. Findings of the study have shown that parents have relatively high but unrealistic expectations especially during the switch-on period before the CI. Following the CI their expectation have changed and reformed but tend to be low with regard to child’s development level. In the light of these findings, new research might be conducted with parents who attends other centers and have different experiences. These research were expected to enrich related literature and practices

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hearing loss, Cochlear implant, Parent, Expectation

Ebeveynlerin Koklear İmplanta İlişkin Beklentilerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Koklear implant (Kİ) uygulamaları, ileri-çok ileri derecede işitme kayıplı çocuklarda tanı sonrası
müdahalede sıklıkla tercih edilen seçeneklerden biridir. Ebeveynler Kİ ameliyatı gibi ciddi bir kararı vermek
zorunda kalırken bu durum tanıdan kısa süre sonra Kİ sürecinin gereksinimlerini karşılamaları anlamına
gelmektedir. Ebeveynlerin Kİ kararını almalarında Kİ’ye ilişkin beklentilerinin önemi düşünüldüğünde bu
beklentilerin niteliğinin anlaşılması ebeveynlerin doğru yönlendirilebilmesi açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır.
Bu çerçevede araştırmanın amacı çocuğu Kİ kullanan ebeveynlerin beklentilerinin niteliğini incelemektir. Nitel
betimsel analiz yaklaşımıyla desenlenen çalışmada Kİ ekip üyeleri (n = 6) ve çocuğu Kİ kullanıcısı olan
ebeveynlerle (n = 7) nitel veri toplama tekniklerinden odak grup görüşme, farklı Kİ firma temsilcileri (n = 4) ile
de yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme yapılmıştır. Görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler tümevarım anlayışıyla betimsel
analize tabi tutulmuştur. Analiz sonucunda iki ana tema ortaya çıkmıştır: (1) Kİ öncesi dönemde beklentiler ve
(2) Kİ sonrası dönemde beklentiler. Kİ öncesi dönemde ebeveynlerin beklentilerinin niteliği akranlarıyla uyumlu
gelişim beklentisi, mucize beklentisi ve işlemcinin açılışı sırasındaki beklentiler olmak üzere üç alt tema altında
sunulmuştur. Kİ sonrası dönemde ise düşük beklentiler ve süreç içinde beklentilerin yeniden yapılandığını
düşündüren bulgulara ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen bu bulgular doğrultusunda ülke çapında farklı araştırmacıların
farklı gruplarla yürüteceği çalışmalar Kİ uygulamalarında ebeveyn beklentilerine dair alanyazın bilgisini ve
uygulamaları zenginleştirebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşitme kaybı, Koklear implant, Ebeveyn, Beklenti

Kaynakça

• Allegretti, C. M. (2003). The effects of a cochlear implant on the family of a hearing impaired child. Pediatric Nursing, 28(6), 614-620.
• Archbold, S., Sach, T., O’Neill, C., Lutman, M., & Gregory, S. (2008). Deciding to have a cochlear implant and subsequent after‐care: Parental perspectives. Deafness and Education International, 8(4), 190‐206.
• Batu, S., Ergenekon, Y., Erbaş, D., & Akmanoğlu, N. (2004). Teaching pedestrian skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education. 13, 147-164.
• Berezon, S. (2008). My child has cochlear implant. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Faculty of Human and Social Development. University Of Virginia, Virginia.
• Birman, C. (2009). Cochlear implant surgical issues in the very young child. Cochlear Implants International, 10(1), 19–22.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1998). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2002). Cochlear implants in children. Ethics and choices. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
• Chute, P.M. & Nevin, M.E. (2002). The parents guide to cochlear implant. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
• Clark, G. M., O’Loughlin, B. J., Rickards, F. W., Tong, Y. C., & Williams, A. J. (1977/2007). The clinical assessment of cochlear implant patients. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 107, 298-307.
• Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107.
• Creswell, J. W. (20o5). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• DesJardin, J.L. (2006). Family empowerment: Supporting language development in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 106(3), 275-298.
• Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (3.bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Edwards, L. C. (2007). Children with cochlear implants and complex needs: A review of outcome research and psychological practice. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 258-268.
• Ertmer, D. J. (2002). Emergence of a vowel system in a young cochlear implant recipient. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 803-813.
• Fadda, S. (2011). Psychological aspects when counseling families who have children with cochlear implants. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 24(1), 104-106.
• Fitzpatrick, E., Angus, D., Durieux‐Smith, A., Graham I. D., & Coyle, D. (2008). Parents’ needs following identification of childhood hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology, 17, 38‐49.
• Geers, A. E. (2006). Factors influencing spoken language outcomes in children following early cochlear implantation. Advances in Oto-RhinoLaryngology, 64(1), 50-65.
• Geers, A., & Brenner, C. (2003). Background and educational characteristics of prelingually deaf children implanted by five years of age. Ear & Hearing, 24, 2-14.
• Hyde, M., & Power, D. (2000). Informed parental consent for cochlear implantation of deaf children: Social and other considerations in the use of the ‘bionic ear’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35(2), 117‐127.
• İncesulu, A. (2014). Koklear implant cerrahisi. E. Belgin ve S. Şahlı (Ed.), Temel odyoloji içinde (s.147-154). İstanbul: Güneş Yayınları.
• İncesulu, A., Vural M., & Erkam U. (2003). Children with cochlear implants: Parental perspective. Otol Neurotol, 24(4), 605-611.
• Johnston, J. C., Durieux‐Smith, A., Fitzpatrick, E., O’Connor, A., Benzies, K., & Angus, D. (2008). An assessment of parents’ decision‐making regarding paediatric cochlear implants. Canadian Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology and Audiology, 32(4), 169‐182.
• Kampfe, C. M., Harrison, M., Orringer, T., Ludington, J., McDonald‐Bell, C., & Pillsbury, H. C. (1993). Parental expectations as a factor in evaluating children for the multichannel cochlear implant. American Annals of the Deaf, 138(3), 297‐303.
• KırcaAli-İftar, G. (2004). Odak grup görüşme tekniği. Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 7-24.
• Kluwin, T. N., & Stewart, D. A. (2000). Cochlear implants for younger children: A preliminary description of the parental decision process and outcomes. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(1), 26‐32.
• Koklear İmplant Derneği (2014). Erişim: 10.02.2015, http://www.koklearimplantdernegi.org.tr/
• Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Illg, A., Heermann, R., Bertram, B.,& Lenarz, T. (2009). Paediatric cochlear implantation in the first and in the second year of life: A comparative study. Cochlear Implants International, 5(4), 146–159.
• Li, Y., Bain, L., & Steinberg, A. G. (2004). Parental decision‐making in considering cochlear implant technology for a deaf child. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68(8), 1027‐1038.
• Marschark, M. (2007). Raising and educating a deaf child. A comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators (4.bs.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Marschark, M., Green, V., Hindmarsh, G., & Walker, S. (2000). Understanding theory of mind in children who are deaf. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41(8), 1067-1074.
• Moeller, M. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), E43.
• Most, T., & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2003). The needs of parents with cochlear implants. The Volta Review, 103, 99-113.
• Nikolopoulos, T P., Lloyd, H., Archbold, S., & O’Donoghue, G. M. (2001). Pediatric cochlear implantation: The parents’ perspective. Archives of Otolaryngology:Head and Neck Surgery, 127, 363-367.
• Peñaranda, A., Suarez, R. M., Nino, N. M., Aparicio, M. L., Garcia, J. M., & Baron, C. (2011). Parents’ narratives on cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants International, 12( 3), 147-156.
• Perold J. L. (2000). An investigation into the expectations of mothers of children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 2(1), 39–58.
• Punch, R., & Hyde, M. (2010). Social participation of children and adolescents with cochlear implants: A qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(3), 432-456.
• Rieffe, C., Terwogt, M. M., & Smith, C. (2003). Deaf children on the causes of emotions. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 159-169.
• Sach, T. H., & Whynes, D. K. (2005). Paediatric cochlear implantation: The views of parents. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 400‐407.
• Schauwers, K., Gillis, S., & Govaerts, P.J. (2004). Babbling in early implanted CI children. International Congress Series, 1273, 344-347.
• Sharma, A., & Dorman, M. F. (2006). A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 23, 532-539.
• Svirsky, M.A., Teoh, S.W., & Neuburger, H. (2004). Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation, Audiology and Neurotology, 9, 224-233.
• Tomblin, J.B., Barker, B.A., Spencer, L.J., Zhang, X., & Gantz, B.J. (2005). The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants. Hearing Research, 198, 146-161.
• Tüfekçioğlu, U. (2010). Speech characteristics of hearing impaired Turkish children. S. Topbaş & M.
• Yavaş (Ed.), Communication disorders in Turkish içinde (s.160-185). Ontario: Multilingual Matters.
• Türnüklü, A.(2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi. 24, 24-38.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6.bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3.bs.). London: Sage Publications.
• Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). From screening to early identification and intervention: Discovering predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11–30.
• Zaidman-Zait, A. (2007). Parenting a child with a cochlear implant: A critical incident study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 221-241.
• Zaidman‐Zait, A., & Most, T. (2005). Cochlear implants in children with hearing loss: Maternal expectations and impact on the family. The Volta Review,150(2), 129‐150.