Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences

The Effectiveness of Teaching the Suprasegmental Features of Stress and Intonation on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Cochlear Implant: A Single-Subject Study

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

1 MSc Student, Department of Language and Linguistics, School of Literature and Humanities, Birjand University, Birjand, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Linguistics, School of Literature and Humanities, Birjand University, Birjand, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Language and Linguistics, School of Literature and Humanities, Birjand University, Birjand, Iran

4 Instructor, Department of Language and Linguistics, School of Literature and Humanities, Birjand University, Birjand, Iran

10.48305/jrrs.2025.42925.1102

Abstract

Introduction: Suprasegmental features such as "stress" and "intonation" play a crucial role in verbal communication by highlighting various semantic and practical aspects of language, particularly in children. Despite receiving treatment and rehabilitation after an early diagnosis of hearing loss, children in this group often perform worse than their hearing peers in certain areas of learning, especially in reading comprehension during primary school. It appears that rehabilitation programs for children with hearing impairments do not adequately address this issue. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of teaching suprasegmental features on the reading comprehension of these children.
Materials and Methods: This study used a single-subject research design with a 1-month follow-up. The training program focused on teaching the understanding of "stress" and "intonation" over five individual sessions for each participant. The measurement tool used was the "text understanding" sub-test from the "Nama" reading test, administered before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and again after the follow-up period. The effectiveness of the training was determined through descriptive analysis and calculation of recovery percentage for each participant.
Results: All participants showed significant improvement in text comprehension scores, with increases of over 49% compared to baseline measurements. Scores obtained during the one-month follow-up demonstrated the stability of the training results.
Conclusion: Teaching suprasegmental speech features appears to enhance reading comprehension in children with hearing impairments. This program is recommended to therapists and educational planners involved in designing treatment and rehabilitation programs for these children.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Nippold MA. Word definition in adolescents as a function of reading proficiency: A research note. Child Lang Teach Ther 1999; 15(2): 171-6.
  2. Kirk S, Gallagher JJ, Coleman MR. Educating Exceptional Children. 14th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning; 2014.
  3. Daza Gonzalez MT, Phillips-Silver J, Maurno NG, García LF, Ruiz-Castañeda P. Improving phonological skills and reading comprehension in deaf children: A new multisensory approach. Sci Stud Read 2023; 27(2): 119-35.
  4. Gholamiyan Arefi M, Azarin far M, Hosseini SF, Sobhani-Rad D. Comparison of Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Skills between The Three Groups of Fourth Grade Students Who Received Hearing Aid, Cochlear Implant and Normal in Mashhad. J Paramed Sci Rehabil 2020; 9(2): 7-15. [In Persian].
  5. Asker-Árnason L, Wass M, Gustafsson F, Sahlén B. Reading comprehension and working memory capacity in children with hearing loss and cochlear implants or hearing aids. Volta Rev 2015; 115(1): 35-65.
  6. Yaghobi A, Ghorbani A. Sentence writing and perception of written sentences in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing primary school students in Hamadan, western Iran. Audiol 2010; 19(1): 31-8. [In Persian].
  7. Nikkhou F, Hasanzadeh S, Afrooz G. The comparative study of reading comprehension in normal-hearing and hearing-loss student. Audiol 2012; 21(2): 71-7. [In Persian].
  8. Rezaei M, Rashedi V, Gholami Tehrani L, Daroei A. Comparison of reading comprehension and working memory in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing children. Audiol 2013; 22(1): 67-74. [In Persian].
  9. Raghibdoust S, Kamari E. Examination of Deaf and Hearing Students' Reading Comprehension Strategies in the Fifth Grade of Elementary School. Lang Sci 2014; 2(2): 37-52. [In Persian].
  10. Mokhlesin M, Kasbi F, Ahadi H, Sojoudi F. Phonological awareness, working memory and reading comprehension in deaf children. Koomesh 2014; 16(2): 128-35. [In Persian].
  11. Haghshenas A. Phonetics. 14th ed. Tehran, Iran: Agah; 2013. p. 192. [In Persian].
  12. Alinezhad B. Fundamental of phonology. 2th ed. Isfahan, Iran: University of Isfahan; 2020. [In Persian].
  13. Modarresi Ghavami G. Phonetics: The Scientific Study of Speech. 6th ed. Tehran, Iran: SAMT; 2019. p. 216. [In Persian].
  14. Kord N, Shahbodaghi MR, Khodami SM, Nourbakhsh M, Jalaei S. Investigation of acoustic correlation of intonation and intelligibility of speech in children with cochlear implant and comparison with normal hearing children. Mod Rehabil 2013; 6(4): 38-43. [In Persian].
  15. Bijankhan M. Phonetic system of the Persian Language. 1th ed. Tehran, Iran: SAMT; 2013. p. 372. [In Persian].
  16. Brown C, McDowall DW. Speech Production Results in Children Implanted with the Clarion® Implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999; 108(4-suppl): 110-2.
  17. Lee KY, Van Hasselt CA, Chiu SN, Cheung DM. Cantonese tone perception ability of cochlear implant children in comparison with normal-hearing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2002; 63(2): 137-47.
  18. Han D, Zhou N, Li Y, Chen X, Zhao X, Xu L. Tone production of Mandarin Chinese speaking children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71(6): 875-80.
  19. Peng SC, Tomblin JB, Turner CW. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2008; 29(3): 336-51.
  20. Hasanvand M, Torabinezhad F, Abolghasemi J, Eslami M. Investigation of Speech Intonation in Cochlear Implant Children in the Imitation and Reading Tasks. Sci J Rehabil Med 2020; 9(1): 194-200. [In Persian].
  21. Khoshnood T. The Study and Analysis of Perception of Some Suprasegmental Features in Cochlear Implant Children in Comparison with Hearing Pairs and also Considering the Effect of Gender and Age at Implantation. Zahedan, Iran: University of Sistan and Baluchestan; 2014. [In Persian].
  22. Koromi-Nouri R, Moradi A. Reading and Dyslexia Test (NAMA). Tehran, Iran: Tarbiat Moallem University; 2008. [In Persian].
  23. Ladefoged P. A Course in Phonetics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth; 2006. p. 336.
  24. Yarmohammadi L. A contrastive analysis of Persian and English: Grammar, vocabulary and phonology. Tehran, Iran: Payame Noor University; 2002. p. 272. [In Persian].
  25. Noferesti A, Hassanabadi HR. Data analysis in single case experimental design studies. Rooyesh 2019; 7(12): 291-306. [In Persian].
  26. Pouladi S, Hasanshahi MM, Rabiei M, Baghery N. The effect of unified transdiagnostic treatment on the improvement of internalizing behavioral problems, emotional regulation, and empathy in children with anxiety disorders. Res Cogn Behav Sci 2022; 12(1): 141-64. [In Persian].
  27. National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, Human Development (US). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Maryland, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health; 2000.
  28. Domínguez AB, Carrillo MS, González V, Alegria J. How Do Deaf Children With and Without Cochlear Implants Manage to Read Sentences: The Key Word Strategy. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2016; 21(3): 280-92.
  29. Lenden JM, Flipsen P, Jr. Prosody and voice characteristics of children with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord 2007; 40(1): 66-81.
  30. Wolfe P. Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Arlington, VA: ASCD; 2010.
  31. Palmer S. Assessing the benefits of phonics intervention on hearing-impaired children's word reading. Deaf Educ Int 2000; 2(3): 165-78.
  32. Mohseni MH. Designing and studying a phonological awareness training program on the development of reading skills among students with hearing impairments. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran; 2011. [In Persian].
  33. Tajalli P, Satari S. Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategies on Reading Skills of Students with Hearing Disorders. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 84: 139-43.
  34. Jalil Abkenar SS, Ashoori M, Movalleli G. The effect of meta cognitive instructions on reading of children with hearing impairment. J Except Educ 2011; 2(108): 38-47. [In Persian].
  35. Ghorbani A. The Impact of Multidisciplinary Occupational Therapy on Reading Improvement of Children with Hearing Impairment (case study). J Except Educ 2016; 5(142): 59-63. [In Persian].
  36. Pouryan A, Movallali G, Zarifian T, Ahmadi S. The effect of Cued Speech on Improving the reading accuracy and comprehension of the late diagnosed first grade deaf students. J Rehabil Med 2019; 8(2): 80-5. [In Persian].
  37. Triarini WD, Degeng INS, Efendi M, Toenlioe A. The effectiveness on the use of multimedia to improve basic reading skill of hearing-impaired students. Eur J Spec Educ Res 2017; 2(5).
  38. Sima-Shirazi T, Nili-Pour R. Developing and Standardization of a Diagnostic Reading Test. J Rehabil 2004; 5(16-17): 7-11. [In Persian].
Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences
Volume 20, Issue 1
2024